AGL Gas Import Jetty Project Crib Point, Western Port

Report to:Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd

AGL Gas Import Jetty ProjectCrib Point, Western Port

Marine Ecosystem Protected MattersAssessment

FINAL

28 September 2018

AGL Gas Import Jetty Project – Marine Ecosystem Protected Matters Assessment ii

AGL Gas Import Jetty ProjectCrib Point, Western Port


ContentsExecutive Summary 11 Introduction 5

1.1 Project overview 51.2 Introduction to Western Port marine environment 51.3 Purpose of this report 81.4 Scope 8

2 Legislative Instruments 92.1 Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 92.2 Environment Effects Act 1978 92.3 Victorian FFG Act 1988 10

3 Marine Environment Protected Matters 114 Western Port Ramsar site 13

4.1 Areas important for waterbirds 16

5 EPBC Act and FFG Act Marine Protected Species 185.1 Endangered species 19

5.1.1 Blue Whale 195.1.2 Southern Right Whales 205.1.3 Leatherback Turtle 215.1.4 Loggerhead Turtle 22

5.2 Vulnerable species 235.2.1 Humpback Whales 235.2.2 White Shark 255.2.3 Australian Grayling 255.2.4 Green Turtle 26

5.3 Migratory species 265.3.1 Brydes Whale 265.3.2 Pygmy Right Whale 265.3.3 Dusky Dolphin 265.3.4 Killer whale 275.3.5 Mackerel Shark 27

5.4 Additional FFG Act listings 275.4.1 Grey Nurse Shark 275.4.2 Southern Bluefin Tuna 275.4.3 Australian or Tasmanian Whitebait 275.4.4 Australian Mudfish 285.4.5 Pale or flatback mangrove goby 285.4.6 Marine Invertebrates 295.4.7 San Remo Marine Community 37

5.5 EPBC Act threatening processes 375.5.1 Introduced marine species 38

AGL Gas Import Jetty Project – Marine Ecosystem Protected Matters Assessment iii

6 Preliminary Assessment of Project effects 416.1 Project processes and potential impact pathways 41

6.1.1 Entrainment effects and mitigation 426.1.2 Effects of cold seawater discharge 436.1.3 Chlorine residual in seawater discharge 44

6.2 Endangered species – preliminary assessment 466.3 Vulnerable species – preliminary assessment 46

6.3.1 Australian Grayling 476.4 Migratory species – preliminary assessment 496.5 Preliminary assessment of FFG marine listed species and communities 50

6.5.1 Pale mangrove goby or flatback mangrove goby 506.5.2 Ghost shrimps 50

6.6 Ramsar area 52

7 Conclusion 558 References 57

TablesTable 1. Marine protected species and need for further information 2Table 2. Summary of marine Protected Environmental Matters within 10 km of Crib

Point 11Table 3. Protected species in region of Crib Point Jetty (at September 2017) 18Table 4. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 - listed marine invertebrates 29Table 5. Chlorine ecosystem protection guidance values 44Table 6. Assessment of Ramsar Selection Criteria 53

FiguresFigure 1. Marine habitat distribution in Western Port 6Figure 2. Natural marine ecosystem components at Crib Point 7Figure 3. Conceptual model of Western Port marine ecosystem in Crib Point area 7Figure 4. Protected Matters Search area 11Figure 5. Western Port Ramsar site 13Figure 6. Marine National Parks within and adjacent to Western Port Ramsar site 16Figure 7. Key roosting, feeding and breeding habitat for waterbirds in Western Port 17Figure 8. Distribution of Blue Whales 20Figure 9. Distribution of Southern Right Whales 21Figure 10. Sightings of Leatherback Turtles in Victoria (DSE, 2007) 22Figure 11. Turtle sightings in Southeastern Australia 23Figure 12. Distribution of Humpback Whales 24Figure 13. Whale sightings compiled for Two Bays Project 2014 to 2017 24Figure 14. Distribution of flatback mangrove goby (Mugilogobius platynotus) 28Figure 15. Distribution of Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin 31Figure 16. Distribution of ghost shrimp Michelia microphylla 32Figure 17. Distribution of brittle star (Amphiura triscacantha) 33Figure 18. Distribution of the sea cucumber (Apsolidium densum) 34Figure 19. Distribution of the sea cucumber Apsolidium handrecki in Victoria 35Figure 20. Distribution of the chiton (Bassethullia glypta) in Victoria 36Figure 21. Seawater intake environmental parameters at Crib Point facility 42Figure 22. Behaviour of cold-water discharge from FSRU at Crib Point 43Figure 23. Maximum extent of cold water field cross-section (concept) 44Figure 24. Location of grayling waterways in Upper North Arm 48Figure 25. General water movement in Western Port 49Figure 26. Locations of collection of FFG listed ghost shrimps near Crib Point 51

AGL Gas Import Jetty Project – Marine Ecosystem Protected Matters Assessment iv

Report to Report prepared byScott Chidgey, Peter CrockettCEE Pty LtdUnit 4, 150 Chesterville RdCheltenham, VIC, 3192Ph. 03 9553 4787Email. [email protected]

CEE (2018): AGL Gas Import Jetty Project Crib Point, Western Port. Marine EcosystemProtected Matters Assessment. Report to Jacobs by CEE Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Cover photo: Crib Point Jetty (AGL)

Document History

Document Details

Job Name AGL Gas Import Jetty Project JobNo. IS210700

Document Marine Ecosystem Protected Matters Assessment

Revision HistoryVersion Date Prepared

ByCheckedBy

Approved by

Final (Ver 01) 27 July 2018 Name S Chidgey S. Ada S. Ada

Final (Ver 02) 30 Aug 2018 Name S Chidgey S. Ada S. Ada

Final (Ver 03) 28 Sept 2018 Name S Chidgey S. Ada S. Ada

mailto:[email protected]

AGL Gas Import Jetty Project – Marine Ecosystem Protected Matters Assessment 1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAGL Wholesale Gas Limited (AGL) is proposing to develop a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)import facility, utilising a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) to be located atCrib Point on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula. The project, known as the “AGL Gas ImportJetty Project” (the Project), comprises:· The continuous mooring of the FSRU at the existing Crib Point Jetty, which will receive

LNG carriers of approximately 300m in length· The construction of ancillary topside jetty infrastructure (Jetty Infrastructure), including

high pressure gas unloading arms and a high pressure gas flowline mounted to the jettyand connecting to a flange on the landside component to allow connection to the CribPoint Pakenham Pipeline Project.

The facility would be located in a section of Western Port (North Arm), which is a diverse butcompact marine environment. It comprises vast intertidal mudflats with saltmarsh, seagrassand mangrove habitats as well as steep subtidal sloping banks with seagrass and deepchannels that connect the north of the bay with the oceanic waters of Bass Strait in thesouth.

These characteristics contribute to the listing of a large part of Western Port as a Ramsarwetland of international significance and the allocation of distinct areas as National Parks.Many of the animal and plant species are not specifically protected or listed for conservationvalue, but the combination of mangroves and seagrasses, saltmarsh, fish, birds,crustaceans, worms and other unique invertebrates all form the Western Port marineecosystem that is valued by the public.

The scope of this assessment was to review relevant Commonwealth and Victorianlegislation for marine protected areas, protected marine species (flora and fauna, excludingbirds and terrestrial fauna) and listed processes that may be relevant to the Project. Variousmarine species, habitats and ecological communities are protected by the CommonwealthEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the StateFlora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). In some cases, species or places are listedon both the EPBC and FFG Acts. The broader ecosystem values of Western Port outside ofthe area relevant to the Project are assessed in the context of Western Port’s Ramsarvalues. These matters are relevant to decisions in relation to the Project referrals under theEnvironment Effects Act 1978 (Vic) (EE Act) and the EPBC Act.

The Western Port Ramsar site was designated as a wetland of international significance in1982. The Ramsar site covers 59,950 ha of Western Port including Crib Point. Western Portis one of eleven Victorian Ramsar sites in Victoria and is the third most important area forwading birds in Victoria. All Ramsar sites are a matter of national environmental significance(MNES) under the EPBC Act. Potential long-term change to the ecological character of aRamsar wetland is also a trigger for referral of a project under the EE Act.

A review of marine Commonwealth EPBC Act MNES and the State FFG Act listed specieshas been completed for the Project. The assessment identified 33 threatened marine speciesand one marine community that the Acts list may occur in Western Port. This assessmentexcluded birds which are assessed in the Jacobs Flora and Fauna Assessment Report. Theidentified threatened marine species are listed in Table 1.


Table 1. Marine protected species and need for further information

Common name Scientific name EPBC FFGFurther

informationrequired*

MammalsBlue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered, Migratory Listed UnlikelySouthern Right Whale Eubalaena australis Endangered, Migratory Listed Unlikely

Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Vulnerable, Migratory Listed Unlikely

Brydes Whale Balaenoptera edeni Migratory Unlikely

Pygmy Right Whale Caperea marginate Migratory Unlikely

Killer Whale Orcinus orca Migratory Unlikely

Dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus Migratory Unlikely

Burrunan Dolphin Tursiops australis Listed marine (NA) Listed Unlikely

SharksWhite shark Carcharodon carcharias Vulnerable, Migratory Listed Unlikely

Grey nurse shark Carcharius Taurus Listed Unlikely

Mackerel Shark Lamna nasus Migratory Unlikely

Freshwater/Marine Migratory FishAustralian grayling Prototroctes maraena Vulnerable Listed YESAustralian mudfish Neochanna cleaver Listed Unlikely

Marine FishPale Mangrove Goby Mugilogobius paludism Listed YESSouthern Bluefin Tuna Thunnus maccoyii Listed Unlikely

Australian Whitebait Lovettia sealii Listed Unlikely

ReptilesLeatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered, Migratory Listed Unlikely

Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta Endangered, Migratory Unlikely

Green Turtle Chelonia mydas Vulnerable, Migratory Unlikely

Marine InvertebratesSouthern hooded shrimp Athanopsis australis Listed UnlikelyGhost shrimp Pseudocalliax Tooradin Listed YESGhost shrimp Michelea microphylla Listed YESBrittle star Amphiura triscacantha Listed Unlikely

Sea-cucumber Apsolidium densum Listed Unlikely

Sea-cucumber Apsolidium handrecki Listed Unlikely

Brittle star Ophiocomina australis Listed Unlikely

Sea-cucumber Pentocnus bursatus Listed Unlikely

Sea-cucumber Thyone nigra Listed Unlikely

Sea-cucumber Trochodota shepherdi Listed Unlikely

Chiton Bassethullia glypta Listed Unlikely

Opisthobranch Platydoris galbana Listed Unlikely

Opisthobranch Rhodope genus Listed Unlikely

Stalked Hydroid Ralpharia coccinea Listed Unlikely

CEE’s review found that many of the marine species listed under the State andCommonwealth Acts were relatively widely distributed, that Western Port represented a smallcomponent of their range and that Western Port was not recognised as a significantaggregation, breeding or feeding location or migratory path for most EPBC identified speciesand many FFG listed species (excluding water birds).

As shaded grey in the table above, the review identified four species that required furtherinformation to inform project risk screening and assessment:


· Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena: EPBC Act ‘Vulnerable’; FFG listed· Pale Mangrove Goby Mugilogobius paludis: FFG listed· Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin: FFG listed· Small-gilled ghost shrimp Michelea microphylla: FFG listed

The potential impact pathways of the Project on these species were identified as:· Cold water effects of the discharge of cold seawater from the FSRU to the waters of

Western Port in the vicinity of Crib Point· Toxicity effects of chlorine related chemicals in the discharge of the heat exchange water

discharged from the FSRU to the waters of Western Port in the vicinity of Crib Point· Entrainment of larvae (all four species) or juveniles (Grayling) into the heat exchange

system of the regasification process on the FSRU

These pathways have been described and modelled in separate reports on hydrodynamicand discharge mixing modelling (CEE, 2018a), heat exchange seawater entrainmentmodelling (CEE, 2018b), the effects of cold-water discharge assessment on the marineecosystem (CEE 2018c) and chlorine behaviour investigation and toxicity modelling (CEE,2018d). Measures to mitigate the effects of the processes on the marine ecosystem alsohave been described in these reports. In summary:· The extent of effect of these processes is likely to be restricted within the lower North

Arm of Western Port.· The extent of effects of cold-water and chlorine toxicity in the discharged waters are likely

to be restricted to an area approximately 200 m north and south and 60 m east and westof the discharge point and species that are located at water depth greater than 12.5 m.

· Entrainment is unlikely to affect species:o that are capable of movement independent of tidal currents§ with propagules that predominantly remain within intertidal or shallow water habitats,§ disperse along the edges of the channels in Western Port and§ disperse within 4 m of the surface or within 4 m of the seabed.

· Entrainment may affect planktonic populations within North Arm to an area ofapproximately 1 km north and south of the FSRU, however entrainment was predicted tobe less than 1 percent over the whole of North Arm.

An examination of information about the Australian Grayling indicated that adult populationsin the rivers and streams would not be exposed to impact pathways and that the proportionof larvae of these species that might disperse via North Arm and be affected by Projectprocesses was low.

Museum of Victoria personnel advised that the Pale Mangrove goby Mugilogobius paludiswas synonymous with the more common flatback goby Mugilogobius platynotus, which is notlisted on the FFG Act threatened species list.

There is evidence of the Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin and the small-gilled ghost shrimp Michelea microphylla being known near Crib Point more than 50 yearsago. The Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin is known only from a total of fiverecords, and the ghost shrimp small-gilled Michelea microphylla from only one specimen.Further examination of information on both ghost shrimps indicated that they had restricteddistributions in Western Port that may indicate susceptibility to entrainment, cold-water andchlorine toxicity effects of the FSRU seawater heat exchange processes if still present in thearea. Further investigations of the present distribution of these species are recommended.


The general outcome of the reports indicates that the direct effects of the full-scale operationof the FSRU on the marine ecosystem in the Ramsar area relate to discharge of cold-water,discharge of residual chlorine and entrainment of larvae and plankton. As stated above, theextent of cold-water and chlorine toxicity effects are likely to be restricted to an areaapproximately 200 m north and south and 60 m east and west of the discharge point in waterdepth from approximately 12.5 m to 17 m. This represents an area of approximately 5 ha,which is less than 0.5 % of the seabed in North Arm1.

Entrainment of up to 10 percent of some plankton and larvae may extend to 750 m north andsouth from the FSRU, but overall entrainment in the whole of North Arm is expected to beless than 1%. The modelling completed for this report and other supporting studies wasbased on the original FSRU seawater flow-through rate of 450,000 m3/day (450 ML/day).AGL has advised that a seawater flow-through rate of 300,000 m3/day (300 ML/day),corresponding to a lower regasification rate is more likely. In this case, the proportion ofplankton entrained may be reduced by approximately one third.

The longer term effects of entrainment on planktonic populations (including some planktoniclarvae and eggs) are uncertain due to the possible natural long term variability in planktoncommunity composition and the intermittent and variable operation of the FSRU, whichdepends on uncertain national and State energy supply options and State energy demandsin the near future and over the next decades. Further investigations are recommended todocument the distributions of marine ecosystem components in the vicinity of the discharge,including planktonic populations, which were previously systematically documented morethan 40 years ago. Further modelling is also recommended to determine residence times andthe proportions of entrainment for different operational scenarios of the FSRU at Crib Point tofurther inform estimation of longer term effects of entrainment.

AGL is committed to further marine environmental studies prior to operation and is presentlyconsidering:· Benthic invertebrate sampling to document the present characteristics and distribution of

epibiota and infauna including targeted investigation to evaluate the existence of ghostshrimp species;

· Measurement of short-term and long-term water temperature variations to provide naturalvariation context for assessment of cold-water discharge differentials

· Refinement of North Arm hydrodynamic models to assist refinement of dischargedispersion models and entrainment estimation models

· Development of entrainment models for North Arm to provide plankton entrainmentproportion contours

· A plankton and larval sampling program to provide information on spatial and temporalvariations in plankton populations in North Arm focussing on the proposed location andposition of the FSRU intake.

· Review of available literature on the effects of entrainment on semi-enclosed marineecosystems to provide guidance on long-term ecosystem implications of planktonentrainment.

These studies will inform a works approval application under the Environment Protection Act1970 and in accordance with the relevant associated regulations, including the StateEnvironment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria).

1 Percentage based on the area of North Arm which is greater than 10 m depth.


1 INTRODUCTION1.1 Project overviewAGL Wholesale Gas Limited (AGL) is proposing to develop a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)import facility, utilising a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) to be located atCrib Point on Victoria’s Mornington Peninsula. The project, known as the “AGL Gas ImportJetty Project” (the Project), comprises:· The continuous mooring of the FSRU at the existing Crib Point Jetty, which will receive

LNG carriers of approximately 300m in length· The construction of ancillary topside jetty infrastructure (Jetty Infrastructure), including

high pressure gas unloading arms and a high pressure gas flowline mounted to the jettyand connecting to a flange on the landside component to allow connection to the CribPoint Pakenham Pipeline Project.

Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Jacobs) was engaged by AGL to undertake planning andenvironmental assessments for the AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. Jacobs engaged CEEEnvironmental Scientists and Engineers to define the marine environmental characteristicsand identify key potential risks to the marine environment from the development andoperation of the Project.

There are several other activities that are related to the AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. Theseinclude the Jetty Upgrade and the Crib Point to Pakenham Gas Pipeline Project which arethe subject of separate assessment and approval processes carried out by separate entities.

Jacobs engaged CEE to define the marine environmental characteristics with respect toprotected matters legislation and identify key potential risks to the marine environment fromthe development and operation of the Project.

1.2 Introduction to Western Port marine environmentWestern Port is a diverse but compact marine environment. It comprises vast intertidalmudflats with saltmarsh, seagrass and mangrove habitats as well as steep subtidal slopingbanks with seagrass and deep channels that connect the north of the bay with the oceanicwaters of Bass Strait in the south (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Marine habitat distribution in Western Port(Red dots are EPA water quality monitoring sites)

The distribution of habitats (Figure 2) and conceptual model of the marine ecosystem in thevicinity of Crib Point (Figure 3) are based on CEE’s understanding of the distribution andcharacteristics of North Arm from previous reviews and studies (Bok et al 2017, CEE 2009and 2014, EPA 1996 and 2001, Kimmerer and McKinnon 1987a and 1987b, MelbourneWater 2011, Ministry for Conservation 1975). The figures show that the FSRU is more than500 m offshore from intertidal and nearshore marine ecosystem components and is locatedin an area of the channel characterised by plankton, pelagic marine species and soft seabedinvertebrate communities.

The ecosystem components associated with the habitats are closely connected by theirrelatively close spatial proximity and the strong tidal currents that transport water back andforth through the channels and over and off the intertidal flats.

These characteristics contribute to the listing of a large part of Western Port as a Ramsarwetland of international significance and the allocation of distinct areas as National Parks.Many of the animal and plant species are not specifically protected or listed for conservationvalue, but the combination mangroves and seagrasses, saltmarsh, fish, birds, crustaceans,worms and other strange invertebrates all form the Western Port marine ecosystem that isvalued by the public.


Figure 2. Natural marine ecosystem components at Crib Point(Position of FSRU shown in red)

Figure 3. Conceptual model of Western Port marine ecosystem in Crib Point area


1.3 Purpose of this reportThe purpose of this assessment is to provide a review of marine environmental mattersprotected under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct 1999 (EPBC Act) and the State Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) that maybe affected by the Project. The report examines the impact pathways of the Project andassesses the associated risks to protected marine species.

This report has been prepared in support of:· A referral under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act),

· A referral under the Victorian Environment Effects Act 1978, and

· Identification of requirements under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988(FFG Act).

The report is expected to inform the preparation of a works approval application to besubmitted to the Environment Protection Authority under the Environment Protection Act1970 and in accordance with the relevant associated regulations, including the StateEnvironment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria).

1.4 ScopeThe scope of this study was to review relevant Commonwealth and State legislation formarine protected areas, protected marine species (flora and fauna, excluding birds andterrestrial fauna) and listed processes that may be relevant to the Project.

Terrestrial flora and fauna and waterbird species are not within the scope of this assessment.These aspects are addressed in the Flora and Fauna Assessment Report (Jacobs, 2018a).

Information on protected matters have been compiled from various sources including Stateand Commonwealth government web sites and publications and information from otherdevelopment projects in the region.


2 LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTSThe key legislative instruments that this Protected Matters report addresses for the purposesof informing marine ecosystem descriptions in referral documents are described below.These matters are relevant to impact assessment under the EPBC Act, the EE Act and FFGAct.

2.1 Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999The Commonwealth EPBC Act is a wide ranging legislative instrument that provides legalprotection of the environment, particularly those features of Australia’s environment,biodiversity and heritage that are listed matters of national environmental significance(MNES). The EPBC Act lists nine MNES and three of these are relevant to the Project:

· Wetlands of International Importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention)

· Listed threatened species and ecological communities· Migratory species protected under international agreements

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) provides theProtected Matters Search Tool that facilitates searches of the Department’s database forMNES in the area of a development.

The Commonwealth provides Guidelines to determine whether an action (project) is likely tohave a significant impact on a MNES (“Significant Impact Guidelines”) or whether an actionconstitutes a listed key threatening process, or entails processes known to be a threateningprocess for specific listed species or places.

2.2 Environment Effects Act 1978The EE Act requires consideration to be given to projects which have significant impacts onthe Victorian environment as described in the Act.

A project with potential adverse environmental effects that, individually or in combination,could be significant in a regional or State context should be referred. The criteria for referralare provided in the Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under theEnvironment Effects Act 1978 (Ministerial Guidelines).

The Ministerial Guidelines include referral criteria for:· potential long-term change to the ecological character of a wetland listed under the

Ramsar Convention or in ‘A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia’

· potential extensive or major effects on the health or biodiversity of aquatic, estuarine ormarine ecosystems over the long term

· potential long-term loss of a significant proportion (e.g. to 1 to 5 percent depending onthe conservation status of the species) of known remaining habitat or population of athreatened species within Victoria

· matters listed under the FFG Act 1988 including:

- potential loss of a significant area of a listed ecological community; or

- potential loss of a genetically important population of an endangered or threatenedspecies (listed or nominated for listing), including as a result of loss or fragmentationof habitats; or

- potential loss of critical habitat; or


- potential extensive or major effects on beneficial uses of waterbodies over the longterm due to changes in water quality.

· potential extensive or major effects on beneficial uses of waterbodies over the long termdue to changes in water quality

The Ministerial Guidelines provide guidance on the matters to be considered in determiningthe extent to which the Project is capable of having a significant effect on the environment.

2.3 Victorian FFG Act 1988The Victorian FFG Act 1988 – sets out its objectives in section 1, Purpose:

“The purpose of this Act is to establish a legal and administrative structure toenable and promote the conservation of Victoria's native flora and fauna and toprovide for a choice of procedures which can be used for the conservation,management or control of flora and fauna and the management of potentiallythreatening processes.”

The processes to assess the Act objectives are to list threatened flora and fauna, ecologicalcommunities and threatening processes, as well as declare areas of “critical habitat”essential to the survival of flora or fauna taxa or ecological communities. The Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) provides Action statements for individualtaxa or communities using risk-based prioritisation.

Under the Act, a potentially threatening process “means a process which may have thecapability to threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of any taxon orcommunity of flora or fauna”. A number of action statements have been prepared for keyflora and fauna taxa. No areas of critical habitat have been declared under the Act.

A review of the listed species under the FFG Act (last updated March 2017) revealed thatthere are 25 listed species that may occur in the vicinity of the Project at Crib Point and oneprotected community (San Remo Marine Community, around 23 km from the Project Site).Furthermore, aspects of the Project involving the ongoing operation of the FSRU within thePort require management and mitigation in order to avoid FFG listed threatening processes:· Input of petroleum and related products into Victorian marine and estuarine

environments;· The discharge of human-generated marine debris into Victorian marine or estuarine

waters; and· The introduction of exotic organisms into Victorian marine waters.


3 MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTED MATTERSThe DoEE Protected Matters Search Tool was used by CEE marine environmental scientistsin September 2017 to list MNES within a 10 km radius of the Project Site at Crib Point, whichincludes all of North Arm of Western Port as well as the Western Entrance to Western Port(Figure 4).

Figure 4. Protected Matters Search area

In practise, the Search Tool includes species that may occur over a substantially wider areathan the nominated search perimeter. Hence a 10 km search radius was considered to be aconservative area for potential extent of the Project impact pathways on the marineenvironment in the vicinity of Crib Point. The search Summary table from the EPBC ActProtected Matters Report relevant to the marine environment is reproduced in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of marine Protected Environmental Matters within 10 km of CribPoint


The results of this search returned four marine matters of national environmental significancewithin a 10 km radius of Crib point:1. One wetland of International Importance: the Western Port Ramsar site2. Two listed threatened ecological communities3. Almost 60 listed threatened species4. More than 50 listed migratory species

CEE environmental scientists screened the listing to determine: the relevance of each listingto the marine environment (excluding waterbirds and waders) and; the likelihood ofoccurrence of the species or community within the search area. The screening assessmentrevealed that:1. The listed threatened ecological communities were the terrestrial communities and not

within the scope of the marine assessment;2. The listed threatened species included terrestrial biota, various bird species including

waterbirds, shorebirds, waders and oceanic albatrosses and petrels. Six of thethreatened species were considered to be endangered or vulnerable ‘marine’ species forfurther assessment.

3. The listed migratory species included various bird species including waterbirds,shorebirds, waders and oceanic albatrosses and petrels. Twelve of the listed migratoryspecies were considered to be migratory ‘marine’ species (excluding birds) protectedunder international agreements for further assessment in this document.


4 WESTERN PORT RAMSAR SITEThe Western Port Ramsar site was designated as a wetland of international significance in1982. The Ramsar site covers 59,950 ha of Western Port including Crib Point (Figure 5).Western Port is one of eleven Victorian Ramsar sites and the third most important area forwading birds in Victoria. All Ramsar sites are MNES under the EPBC Act. Ramsar areas arewetlands of international importance to waterbirds in any season.

Figure 5. Western Port Ramsar site

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat is atreaty negotiated between 18 countries and a number of NGOs at Ramsar, Iran in 1971.Australia became a Contracting Party in 1974 and the Ramsar Convention as it is nowknown entered into force in 1975. The Ramsar Convention established the criteria fordeclaring a site a Wetland of International Importance, which now include nine criteriacovering species, ecological communities, waterbirds, fish and other taxa. The RamsarConvention encourages signatory countries to designate wetland sites in order to conserve


their ecological, botanical, zoological, limnological or hydrological importance. By listing aRamsar site, countries agree to establish and oversee a management framework toconserve a wetland and ensure its wise use.

The current management plan for the Western Port Ramsar site was released by DELWP in2017. The Western Port Ramsar site comprises a large area of shallow intertidal mudflats,deep channels and some narrow strips of coastal land. The site includes all areas of WesternPort north of a line between Point Leo (Mornington Peninsula) and Observation Point (PhillipIsland) and a line between Newhaven and San Remo (The Narrows).

Western Port meets seven of the nine criteria for designation as a Ramsar site, as reviewedby KBR (2010) and DELWP (2017), and listed in the Australian Wetlands Database:· Criterion 1: Western Port is a particularly good example of a natural wetland marine

embayment with extensive intertidal flats, mangroves, saltmarsh, and seagrass bedswithin the South East Coastal Plain bioregion. Western Port is also a very good exampleof a saltmarsh-mangrove-seagrass wetland system.

· Criterion 2: The site supports the fairy tern which is a species of global conservationsignificance, in addition to the dense leek-orchid which is listed as vulnerable under theEPBC Act. Saltmarsh vegetation within the site provides important habitat for the orange-bellied parrot, listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act.

· Criterion 3: Western Port is one of the most important areas for migratory waders insouth-east Australia with wader surveys indicating that the Ramsar site supports up to 39species, and includes 10 000 to 15 000 summer migrants (approximately 12 to 16 percent of the Victorian population). It also supports seagrass and mangrove communitiesthat are characteristic of the marine embayments of Southern Victoria.

· Criterion 4: The Ramsar site is one of the three most important areas in southeastAustralia for migratory waders in total numbers and density. The site also providesimportant overwintering habitat for the orange bellied parrot. It also provides a number ofimportant high tide roosts and breeding habitat.

· Criterion 5: The Ramsar site regularly supports about 10 000 to 15 000 migratory waders,and periodically supports 1000 to 3000 ducks and 5000 to 10 000 Black Swans.

· Criterion 6: The Ramsar site regularly supports more than one per cent of the estimatedflyway population of five wader species. The site also regularly supports internationallysignificant numbers of several non-wader species.

· Criterion 7. Not considered applicable in KBR (2010) and DELWP (2017) reviews· Criterion 8: Seagrass beds within the Ramsar site are known to provide important nursery

habitat for a number of fish species, including commercially significant species.· Criterion 9. Not considered applicable in KBR (2010) and DELWP (2017) reviews

In addition to fulfilling the majority of the Ramsar criteria for designation, Western Portcontains a large number of Wetland Habitat types recognised under the Ramsar Convention.Wetland habitats include:· Marine subtidal aquatic beds; such as seagrass and algae beds, including near Crib

Point· Rocky marine shores; such as the intertidal and subtidal rocky reefs· Estuarine Waters; such as the areas around the mouths of the rivers and creeks that

drain into Western Port· Intertidal mud, sand or salt flats; such as the extensive vegetated and unvegetated mud

and sand flats, including around Crib Point· Intertidal forested wetlands; such as the extensive fringing mangroves around the north

and west shores of Western Port, including near Crib Point. The White Mangroves(Avicennia marina) found in Western Port are the most southerly mangroves in the world.


· Intertidal marshes; such as the salt marshes behind the Mangroves in Western Port,including near Crib Point

The management plan for the Western Port Ramsar Site (DELWP, 2017) identified 17priority threats to the values of Western Port as a Ramsar Site. Three of these threats arerelevant to the Project:· Invasive species: introduced marine pests (current and potential new invasions)· Climate change: sea level rise· Climate change: increased frequency and intensity of storms leading to shoreline erosion· Climate change: increased frequency and intensity of storms leading to increased

sediments

Industrial development resulting in habitat removal and associated impacts as well asemissions of toxicants from rural, agricultural and urban areas were also identified as prioritythreats. The Project does not involve removal of habitat within the Ramsar boundaries.

The management plan also identifies management strategies for protecting the Western PortRamsar site. Those with most relevance to the Project are:· 3.6 Develop and implement a strategic approach to development in areas adjacent to the

Ramsar site that consider the cumulative impact of multiple actions on ecologicalcharacter

· 3.14 Develop and implement a marine pest strategy for Western Port.

These two strategies have not yet been developed or published. An action statement on theintroduction of exotic organisms into Victorian marine waters was produced under the FFGAct in 2004 and is discussed in section 5.5.1 of this report.

The high environmental, social and economic worth of Western Port is recognised furtherthrough the declaration of Western Port as an UNESCO Biosphere reserve and the presenceof several Marine National Parks within the Ramsar site (Churchill Island, French Island,Yaringa, see Figure 6).


Figure 6. Marine National Parks within and adjacent to Western Port Ramsar siteCrib Point Jetty circled red.

Ramsar area bordered in black.Marine National Parks are blue areas. Terrestrial National Parks and reserves are green areas.

(Source: “Western Port Ramsar site. Strategic management plan.” DSE 2003)

4.1 Areas important for waterbirdsAs discussed above, Criteria 3 to 6 of the nine criteria for designation as a Ramsar sitedirectly relate to waterbirds, including wader and non-wader migratory and flyaway species.

The key areas used by waterbirds in the Western Port Ramsar area are shown in Figure 7.The figure shows that all of the intertidal mudflats of the Western Port Ramsar area areconsidered to be suitable foraging area for waterbirds. Primary foraging areas for waterbirdsextends over the intertidal mudflats to the north of Crib Point, while mudflats to the south ofCrib Point are rated as secondary foraging areas. The closest roosting sites are located morethan 4 km from Crib Point at Long Island Point to the north, or across North Arm at Fairhavenon French Island. The next closest roosting site is located at Sandy Point more than 6 kmsouth of Crib Point. Effects of the Project on waterbird species is assessed in the “Flora andFauna Assessment Report” (Jacobs, 2018a).


Figure 7. Key roosting, feeding and breeding habitat for waterbirds in Western Port(Hansen, Menkhorst and Loyn 2011)

The most commonly identified threats to wading birds in Western Port were listed (Hansen etal 2011) as:· Habitat loss and modification· Disturbance from beach users (walkers, joggers, dog walkers, etc.)· Disturbance from water users (fishing, sailing, personal water craft and similar)· Nest loss (trampling, storm or tidal inundation)· Bird injury &/or mortality (predation, collision with vehicles or vessels, tangling in fishing

line)· Competition· Aircraft activity.


5 EPBC ACT AND FFG ACT MARINE PROTECTED SPECIESThere are 33 threatened and migratory species listed under the EPBC Act and FFG Act thatmay occur in the vicinity of the Project at Crib Point, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Protected species in region of Crib Point Jetty (at September 2017)Common name Scientific name EPBC FFG

MammalsBlue Whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered, Migratory ListedSouthern Right Whale Eubalaena australis Endangered, Migratory ListedHumpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Vulnerable, Migratory ListedBrydes Whale Balaenoptera edeni MigratoryPygmy Right Whale Caperea marginata MigratoryKiller Whale Orcinus orca MigratoryDusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus MigratoryBurrunan Dolphin Tursiops australis Listed marine (NA) Listed

SharksWhite shark Carcharodon carcharias Vulnerable, Migratory ListedGrey nurse shark Carcharius taurus ListedMackerel Shark Lamna nasus Migratory

Freshwater/Marine Migratory FishAustralian grayling Prototroctes maraena Vulnerable ListedAustralian mudfish Neochanna cleaveri Listed

Marine Fish

Mangrove Goby Mugilogobius platynotusM paludis** Listed

Southern Bluefin Tuna Thunnus maccoyii ListedAustralian Whitebait Lovettia sealii Listed

ReptilesLeatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered, Migratory ListedLoggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta Endangered, MigratoryGreen Turtle Chelonia mydas Vulnerable, Migratory

Marine InvertebratesSouthern hooded shrimp Athanopsis australis ListedGhost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin ListedGhost shrimp Michelea microphylla ListedBrittle star Amphiura triscacantha ListedSea-cucumber Apsolidium densum ListedSea-cucumber Apsolidium handrecki ListedBrittle star Ophiocomina australis ListedSea-cucumber Pentocnus bursatus ListedSea-cucumber Thyone nigra ListedSea-cucumber Trochodota shepherdi ListedChiton Bassethullia glypta ListedOpisthobranch Platydoris galbana ListedOpisthobranch Rhodope genus ListedStalked Hydroid Ralpharia coccinea Listed

* Pipefish and seahorses that occur in lists in the EPBC Act are not relevant to this project. The list applies only toCommonwealth waters and Commonwealth agency proponents.

**Flatback or Pale mangrove goby is listed as Mugilogobius paludis in FFG, but is more correctly known as M platynotus

Each species listed under the EPBC Act or FFG Act is discussed below. Those species listedon both the EPBC Act and FFG Act are discussed first, followed by those species listed onlyon the FFG Act and not the EPBC Act.


5.1 Endangered speciesThe DoEE PMST identified that four endangered marine species may occur in the WesternPort region: the Blue Whale, the Southern Right Whale, the Leatherback Turtle and theLoggerhead Turtle. Both whale species and the Leatherback Turtle are also listed under theFFG Act. Most of these species are unlikely to occur near Crib Point, except on very rarediversions from their regular migratory pathways. However, they are discussed below tothoroughly assess the potential impacts and demonstrate that that the Project at Crib Pointpresents negligible risk to these species.

5.1.1 Blue WhaleThe Project Site at Crib Point is remote from Blue Whale aggregation areas and plausiblemigration pathways. It is highly unlikely that Blue Whales would enter the North Arm ofWestern Port. Overall, it is highly unlikely that the processes associated with the Projectwould have any effect on Blue Whales. The nearest record is for a decayed specimen thatwashed up on Flinders Beach (whales often drift great distances at sea after death). Thereare records of sightings offshore from Cape Schanck and east of Wilsons Promontory, butnone in the vicinity of Western Port.

Blue Whales are the largest of whales growing to 33 m in length, with an average size of25 m. Research at Deakin University (Dr Peter Gill) has shown that there is a population ofBlue Whales which is resident for the summer period in western Victorian waters (Figure 8).

This population of Blue Whales is slightly smaller than their northern hemispherecounterparts and is therefore sometimes referred to as ‘pygmy’ Blue Whale. This term tendsto misrepresent the members of the southern Australian population whose size of 22 m issubstantially larger than other whale species in the region such as the Southern Right Whale(17 m) and Humpback Whale (15 m).

The southern Australian population of Blue Whales feed on krill in western Victorian andeastern South Australian waters over summer (Figure 8). The migration path of thispopulation has not been established. It may migrate eastward and up the east Australiancoast with the Eden population to spend winter in areas of productive southern Pacifictropical seas, or westward and up the West Australian coast with the Rottnest population.

The south-eastern Australian population of Blue Whales is small in number (probably around50 individuals). The worldwide number of Blue Whales is also very small and so the southernAustralian population forms a significant proportion of the world’s total population. Themigration paths of the south-eastern Australian population have not been documented. It islikely that some individuals may pass through central Bass Strait during autumn and springmigrations between the Portland region and the tropics, including past the entrances toWestern Port. These large whales generally inhabit deeper, offshore waters and will pass aconsiderable distance offshore from the coastline, and it is highly unlikely that they wouldenter the relatively shallow waters of Western Port.


Figure 8. Distribution of Blue Whales(Source: Blue, Fin and Sei, Whale Recovery Plan, DEWR)

5.1.2 Southern Right WhalesSouthern Right Whales are encountered seasonally in Bass Strait, more frequently inwestern Bass Strait where they calve and intermittently in central Bass Strait. Southern RightWhales may pass close to the shore all along the central Victorian region including past theentrances to Western Port. Southern Right Whales have been sighted in Western Port, withtwo records in the vicinity of Crib Point, but the bay is not known to be an aggregation orbreeding area for these whales. The distribution and recognised aggregation areas of theSouthern Right Whale is shown in Figure 9.

Southern Right Whales are large whales measuring up to 17.5 m. They migrate each yearfrom summer feeding grounds in the subantarctic to calve and mate in warmer waters off thesouthern Australian coast during winter. Southern Right Whales were hunted to nearextinction by the early 1900's, but the number has slowly recovered resulting in increasingnumbers of sightings along parts of the southern Australian coastline during winter andspring. The Australian total population of Southern Right Whales is estimated to be 800.Since the 1970's Southern Right Whale sightings along the Victorian coast have increasedsignificantly (Warneke 1995), but the trend has not been quantified. The actual number ofwhales visiting Victoria is a very small fraction of the main population which over-wintersalong the coasts of South Australia and Western Australia.

In Victoria, pregnant females generally arrive in May-June and depart with their calves inOctober-November. Females with young calves may be found anywhere along the coastfrom Gabo Island in the east to Cape Bridgewater in the west, but most sightings are west ofPort Phillip Bay. There is a major maternity site at Logans Beach, Warrnambool. SouthernRight Whales may enter Western Port’s western entrance and are observed from vantagepoints and wildlife cruises along Phillip Island’s northwest, west and southern coast (Figure13).


Figure 9. Distribution of Southern Right Whales(Source: Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan, DEWR)

5.1.3 Leatherback TurtleThe Leatherback, Leathery, Luth or Trunkback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is the largestof all the marine turtles and grows to 1.7 m long (carapace) and 600 kg. Leatherback Turtlespre-date other marine turtles by around 65 million years, they have inhabited the oceans foraround 100 million years. The Leatherback Turtle is migratory and has a worldwidedistribution in tropical, temperate and sub-polar waters down to 10°C. The LeatherbackTurtle is listed as critically endangered under the Victorian FFG Act.

Adults live in ocean habitats and rarely come close to shore in Australia. Breeding occurs ontropical islands throughout the world. Leatherbacks found around Australia are understood tobreed in the islands of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Torres Strait and Arnhem Land. Thespecies is migratory, travelling thousands of kilometres between breeding and foragingareas. Leatherback Turtles feed mostly on pelagic invertebrates such as jellyfish and BassStraight has one of the three largest concentrations of feeding Leathery Turtles in Australia.In Victoria, Leatherback Turtles are most commonly seen between April and May, when thewaters of Bass Strait are warmest. Sightings and strandings have been recorded all alongthe Victorian Bass open coast, Port Philip Bay and the Gippsland Lakes (Figure 10). Thereare no records from Western Port, however there have been numerous sightings nearby,including around Port Phillip Heads.

The Leatherback Turtle is considered critically endangered worldwide, vulnerable under theEPBC Act and critically endangered in Victoria (DSE, 2007), though it is listed as threatenedunder the FFG Act. The key threat to the species, as for many turtles, is human disturbanceof breeding habitats and harvesting of eggs. Leatherback Turtles do not nest in Victoria.Other threats include by-catch in commercial fisheries, and in Victoria the key by-catch threatis entanglement in cray pot buoy lines. Ingestion of marine debris is also a concern,


particularly of plastics, as Leathery Turtles tend to feed along drift lines where debrisaccumulates.

Figure 10. Sightings of Leatherback Turtles in Victoria (DSE, 2007)

5.1.4 Loggerhead TurtleThe Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) is smaller than the Leatherback Turtle at around 1 mcarapace length. They inhabit primarily tropical and subtropical seas, though it is thoughtlikely they occasionally occur in south-east Australia in the warmer months. LoggerheadTurtles are carnivorous, feeding on crabs, sea-urchins and jellyfish. There are two distinctpopulations in Australia, one which nests along the northwest coast of Western Australia andone that nests on islands and coasts of the southern Great Barrier Reef. Nesting does notoccur in Victoria.

The key threats to Loggerhead Turtles are similar to those for Leatherback Turtles – theyinclude threats to nesting success and commercial fishery by-catch mortality. Predation ofeggs by foxes on mainland beaches is a key problem in Western Australia and Queensland.Mortality as fishery by-catch is a problem throughout their tropical and sub-tropical foragingrange, with entanglement in lobster-pot buoy lines, long lines, and ghost nets the key issues.

There are 13 records of Loggerhead Turtles in Victoria (Atlas of Living Australia, 2017), themajority of which were recorded on the Victorian coastline west of Melbourne (Figure 11).Seven were of dead specimens and most others were live beach strandings. There are norecords from Western Port.


Figure 11. Turtle sightings in Southeastern Australia(https://cie-deakin.com/about-sast/)

5.2 Vulnerable speciesThe DoEE PMST identified four vulnerable marine species that may occur in the WesternPort region: Humpback Whales; Great White Shark, Australian Grayling and Green Turtle.The Humpback Whale, Great White Shark and Australian Grayling are also listed under theFFG Act.

5.2.1 Humpback WhalesHumpback Whales are large whales growing to approximately 18 m and have a worldwidedistribution. Central Bass Strait including Western Port is generally outside HumpbackWhales’ migratory path, and is not a feeding, breeding or calving area (Figure 12). However,humpback whales migrating up the western side of Tasmania and then eastward throughBass Strait may wander from their migratory path into Western Port from time to time, andthere are records of Humpback Whales in Western Port as far north as Crawfish Rock (ALA,2017). Whale records collated for the Two Bays Project (Figure 13) show that, a total of 175humpback whales were sighted in winter close to Phillip Island since records commenced in2002. Considering the small number of Humpback whales that may occur in the area, theextremely small proportion of the population that those individuals represent and the lowlikelihood of interaction with the Project, the risk to these whales is very low.


Figure 12. Distribution of Humpback Whales(Source: Humpback Whale Recovery Plan, DEH)

Figure 13. Whale sightings compiled for Two Bays Project 2014 to 2017(Source: Victorian Dolphin Research Institute and Wildlife Coast Cruises)


5.2.2 White SharkThe key threats to White Shark (also known as Great White Shark) populations arecommercial fishing, recreational fishing, shark control activities (beach meshing), trade (fins,jaws and teeth) and tourism (FFG Action Statement No. 185). The Project does not involvethese threats, and it is unlikely that indirect effects of the development will detrimentally affectWhite Shark populations.

The White Shark is a very large shark. It occurs in all oceans of the world, including BassStrait and Western Port. The seal breeding colony at Seal Rock at the Western Entrance toWestern Port is a known feeding area for White Sharks and these sharks have been caughtand observed in Western Port from time to time.

White Sharks are highly mobile with vast individual geographic ranges. Individuals typicallyremain resident in one locality only for periods of days or rarely weeks before moving toanother area, according to observations of fishermen, divers and marine scientists. Thebreeding characteristics of whites is not known with “only two pregnant females recorded incontemporary times” (Last and Stevens 1994). White Sharks have been tagged withtransmitters by various researchers including CSIRO. A shark (Neale) that was tagged nearCorner Inlet in eastern Bass Strait travelled a total of 3,000 km over a 4 month period. Thetrack included two Bass Strait crossings – probably east of Flinders Island – in the generalregion of Western Port. Neale’s track concluded at Coffs Harbour in New South Wales. Othersharks have been tracked making repeat crossings of the Tasman Sea to New Zealand, andup and down the West and East Australian coasts. The risk to White Shark populations fromthe development and operation of the Project is considered to be negligible.

5.2.3 Australian GraylingThe Australian Grayling (Prototroctes maraena) is a small (300 mm long) freshwater fish thathas larval and juvenile stages in the marine environment. The Bass River in south-easternWestern Port and the Bunyip River in north-eastern Western Port are the two most significantfreshwater inputs to the Bay.

The population of the Australian Grayling has reduced substantially over the past 100 years.The current distribution is patchy over its former range from the Grose River west of Sydneythroughout New South Wales, Victoria, eastern South Australia, Tasmania and on KingIsland in Bass Strait. In Victoria, Grayling are known to occur in most permanent rivers andstreams with natural flow regimes, as well as rivers and streams with modified flow regimes(eg. Yarra, Barwon, Bunyip) and varying water quality. Large populations may occur in riversin eastern Victoria such as the Tambo River. There appears to be some mixing betweenlarval populations during their marine phase (Crook et al, 2006).

Studies have identified that in streams with modified flow regimes, such as the Bunyip River,provision of environmental flows timed to trigger spawning of Australian Grayling is likely toimprove their populations (DELWP, 2016).

It is possible that larvae and juvenile Grayling disperse and migrate between freshwaterstreams in Western Port and Bass Strait via North Arm and the Western Entrance to WesternPort. The importance of these pathways to the local Grayling populations is uncertain. Theintake of seawater through the Crib Point regasification facility may entrain dispersing larvaeand migrating juveniles and therefore may be considered to be a ‘barrier to migration’ (FFGAction Statement no. 257). Cold water and dilute biocide in the seawater discharged from theheat exchange system may also provide a thermal and chemical barrier for migratingjuveniles and dispersing larvae.


The potential effects of these Project impact pathways is assessed in Section 6 of this report.

5.2.4 Green TurtleThe Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) is a tropical species of turtle, and one of the mostnumerous of the seven turtle species found globally. It generally only occurs in waters wheretemperatures average 20°C or more, but may occasionally stray into temperate waters(following warm coastal currents) given its long migration ability. Their preferred habitat iscoral reefs with abundant algae and seagrass beds, and adults are herbivorous. There areseven nesting populations in Australia, with all nesting occurring in tropical waters – from thesouthern Great Barrier Reef, around the Top End to the North West Shelf.

There are seven records of Green Turtles in Victorian waters, most of them for deadspecimens found on beaches. There is one record of a dead Green Turtle on Reef Island ineastern Western Port.

Threats to the Green Turtle primarily relate to disturbance of nesting and foraging sites,collisions with boats and ships, habitat disturbance and by-catch in fishing operations.

5.3 Migratory speciesThe DoEE PMST identified that eight migratory marine species may occur in the WesternPort region: The Blue Whale, Southern Right Whale, Humpback Whale, Bryde’s Whale,Pygmy Right Whale, Dusky Dolphin, Killer Whale, White Shark and Mackerel Shark. Inaddition, three turtle species may occur in the Western Port region and are protected underthe EPBC Act. Seven of these species are discussed in the preceding sections as they arealso listed as endangered or vulnerable. The remaining five species are discussed belowwith reference to records in the Atlas of Living Australia.

5.3.1 Brydes WhaleBryde’s Whale is a large whale which grows to approximately 15 m and feeds on schoolingfish such as anchovies and pilchards. It is generally confined to tropical and temperatewaters from the equator to 40o north and south of the equator. In Australia it is mostlyrecorded from northern Western Australian waters and off Queensland. It is unlikely to occurfrequently along the southern Australian coastline or in Bass Strait. There are no records ofBrydes Whales in Western Port or Victorian waters.

5.3.2 Pygmy Right WhaleThe Pygmy Right Whale is a small, planktivorous whale which grows to approximately 6.5 mlength. It is widely distributed in the southern hemisphere. Pygmy Right Whales may becommon in Bass Strait from time to time although they do not appear to follow seasonalmigrations. There are a small number of observations near Warrnambool in Western Victoria,but none elsewhere in Victoria. There do not appear to be any significant breeding or feedinggrounds for Pygmy Right Whales in the Western Port. A skull from the species was foundnear Cowes on Phillip Island.

5.3.3 Dusky DolphinThe Dusky Dolphin is a relatively small dolphin that occurs in the southern hemisphere incool waters from 26o S to 55o S. They may migrate southward in summer. There are norecords of Dusky Dolphins in Victorian waters and there does not appear to be anysignificant breeding or feeding grounds for Dusky Dolphins in the Western Port area.


5.3.4 Killer whaleThe Killer Whale is a moderate sized, predatory whale that is distributed throughout theoceans of the world. Small pods of Killer Whales are observed in Bass Strait from time totime including the area offshore from Western Port, particularly around Seal Rocks. There isone recorded sighting inside Western Port off Ventnor on Phillip Island.

Killer Whales eat a wide range of marine species including seals and penguins. It is notknown whether Killer Whales are attracted to the breeding colonies of penguins and seals atPhillip Island, but they have been recorded at and near Seal Rocks by the Two Bays Project(Figure 13).

5.3.5 Mackerel SharkThe Mackerel Shark or Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) is a medium sized (up to 2 m and 230 kg)found throughout temperate seas around the world and in Australia from southernQueensland to southwest Australia. It primarily inhabits waters near the continental shelfwhere it feeds on pelagic fish and cephalopods (squid). The key threat to the Mackerel Sharkis overfishing due to the high value of its fins, long life-span and low fecundity. It is prohibitedto target Mackerel Sharks in Australian waters. The Mackerel Shark may occasionally, andtemporarily enter coastal waters. There are no records from Victorian Coastal Waters orBass Strait.

5.4 Additional FFG Act listings5.4.1 Grey Nurse SharkGrey Nurse Sharks are most unlikely to be found in the central Bass Strait region or inWestern Port.

The Grey Nurse Shark is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, with the east coastpopulation being listed as critically endangered. The Grey Nurse Shark is listed under theFFG Act. There are no recent confirmed records of Grey Nurse Sharks in Victoria south ofMallacoota. The distribution of Grey Nurse Sharks (western and eastern populations) inAustralia is widely considered to be confined to Western Australia, southern Queensland andthe entire New South Wales coast (DoEE, 2014).

The key threats to the species relate to recreational and commercial fishing and shark nettingof bathing beaches (FFG Action Statement no. 186).

5.4.2 Southern Bluefin TunaSouthern Bluefin Tuna are most unlikely to be found in central Bass Strait or in Western Port.

This oceanic species is widely distributed in southern oceans from New Zealand to southernAfrica and into the South Atlantic Ocean. It is the basis of a valuable fishing industry.Southern Bluefin Tuna prefer deep ocean waters or the productive waters of the continentalslope. Hence, in Victoria, they are only found in western and eastern Victoria where thecontinental shelf is narrow. The key threat to Southern Bluefin Tuna is commercial fishing(FFG Action Statement no. 197). Protection of this species in Victoria is managed by settinga commercial by-catch limit of 0 kg, and restricting recreational anglers to a bag limit of twofish.

5.4.3 Australian or Tasmanian WhitebaitThe Australian Whitebait is a small (77 mm maximum length) fish which lacks scales and hastranslucent or silvery colouring, though adults may turn completely black in estuariesfollowing spawning. Originally the fish was only known from Tasmania where it remains a


popular recreational fishing species in north coast estuaries. In Victoria (and the rest ofmainland Australia) it has only been identified in the Tarwin River and Anderson Inlet, despiteextensive sampling for fish in estuaries and inlets elsewhere in Victoria.

The Australian Whitebait was heavily fished commercially in Tasmania during the 20th

century. The Tasmanian commercial fishery was closed in 1974 after it collapsed, and onlylimited, seasonal recreational fishing is now allowed. No commercial or recreationalAustralian Whitebait fishing has occurred in Victoria.

The key threats to the species in Victoria have been identified as by-catch during commercialglass eel fishing, impacts on fresh and estuarine water quality from runoff (pesticides,herbicides, fertilisers), oil spills and modification of habitat through the construction ofmarinas, dredging or stream modification (FFG Action Statement No. 259).

5.4.4 Australian MudfishThe Australian Mudfish is a small, 80 mm long fish associated with coastal wetlands andstreams. Larvae and juveniles of the mudfish are thought to spend some time in marinewaters before migrating back into streams and wetlands. Only 29 adult specimens have beenidentified from seven sites in Victoria, ranging from the east side of Wilsons Promontory torivers west of Cape Otway. None have been identified in Western Port, though suitablehabitat may exist. The key threat to the population of Australian Mudfish in Victoria is the lossof suitable wetland habitat due to human modification, particularly in South Gippsland (FFGAction Statement No. 115).

5.4.5 Pale or flatback mangrove gobyThe FFG Act lists the pale mangrove goby Mugilogobius paludis (Whitley,1930) as athreatened species in Victoria. Consultation with Curator of Fishes at Museums Victoriarevealed that M paludis is the same species at M platynotus. Further, M platynotus (Gunther1861) is the correct identification for the species as determined in the taxonomic literature(Larson 2001). M platynotus is known as the flatback mangrove goby, mangrove goby andpale mangrove goby.

Figure 14. Distribution of flatback mangrove goby (Mugilogobius platynotus)(http://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon accessed September 2017)

http://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon


The flatback mangrove goby is a small brown goby found in mangrove associated marineand estuarine bays and inlets from southeast Queensland to Victoria (Figure 14).M platynotus is known also to be widespread in Western Port (Figure 14), whereas M paludisis known only from one individual collected on unvegetated mudflat at Wooleys Beach nearCrib Point in 2002 (Hindell and Jenkins 2003, Jenkins 2015). The record of M paludis shouldhave been reported as M platynotus. The potential impact of the project onM paludism/platynotus is assessed in Section 6.5.1 of this report.

5.4.6 Marine InvertebratesThirteen marine invertebrates are listed under the FFG Act, including three species ofcrustacean, seven species of echinoderm, three species of mollusc and one cnidarian(hydroid). The location of specimens, and the environment and habitat of these esotericmarine species are described in O’Hara and Barmby (2000), and are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 - listed marine invertebratesTaxa Common Name Environment Habitat LocationCrustaceansAthanopsisaustralis

Southernhooded shrimp

Bay Sand, mud, reef (5-12m)

Port Phillip Bay andBridgewater Bay (Vic)

Pseudocalliaxtooradin

Ghost shrimp Bay Fine sand (2-5m) Swan Bay and CribPoint (Western Port)(Vic)

Micheleamicrophylla

Ghost shrimp Bay Sandy gravel (19 m) Crib Point (WesternPort) (Vic)

EchinodermsAmphiuratriscacantha

Brittle starspecies

Bay andChannel

Posidonia andHeterozosteraseagrass beds(subtidal)

Nooramunga andpossibly Western Port(Vic) and Spencer & StVincent Gulfs (SA).

Apsolidiumdensum

Sea-cucumberspecies

Open Coast Rocky shallows (0-2 m)

Apollo Bay andFlinders (Vic)

Apsolidiumhandrecki

Sea-cucumberspecies

Bay Rocky shallows (onrock platforms)

Merricks (Vic), ArnoBay (SA) and TriggIsland (WA)

Ophiocominaaustralis

Brittle starspecies

Channel Posidonia andHeterozosteraseagrass beds and onPinna bivalves(subtidal)

Nooramunga (Vic) andSpencer & St VincentGulfs (SA)

Pentocnusbursatus

Sea-cucumberspecies

Open Coast Found living onshallow watermacroalgae (subtidal)

Cape Paterson (Vic),Beachport (SA) andCockburn Sound (WA)

Thyone nigra Sea-cucumberspecies

Bay Bay habitats(subtidal)

Corio Bay (Vic), StVincent Gulf (SA) andBramble Pt, PrincessRoyal Harbour (WA)

Trochodotashepherdi

Sea-cucumberspecies

Channel Posidonia seagrassbeds (subtidal)

Nooramunga (Vic) andSpencer & St VincentGulfs (SA)

MolluscsBassethulliaglypta

Chiton Bay andOpen Coast

Under rocks in sand(intertidal to 10 m)

Southern Port PhillipBay, Bass Strait (PortPhillip Heads),Flinders (Vic) andStanley (Tas)


Taxa Common Name Environment Habitat LocationPlatydorisgalbana

Opisthobranch Bay Reef flat San Remo (Vic)

Rhodope genus Opisthobranch Bay Reef flat San Remo (Vic)CnidariansRalphariacoccinea

Stalked Hydroid Bay Reef Crawfish Rock

Many of the marine invertebrates listed under the FFG Act are apparently Victorian endemicspecies (that is, only found in Victoria) and little is known about their biology (O’Hara andBarmby, 2000). These marine invertebrates are only known from between one and sevenindividual specimens which have been collected at between one and four different localitiesin Victorian waters.

Table 4 shows that eight listed species may occur in the general Western Port region, withtwo species of ghost shrimp found at Crib Point (“Pseudocalliax tooradin and Micheleamicrophylla). Five species are known from collections at locations in Western Port that arerelatively remote from the direct activities associated with the Project. One species record(the brittle star Amphiura triscacantha) appears to have been a mis-identification. The eightspecies with recorded distributions in Western Port are discussed below.

The Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin (variously known as Callianassatooradin 1979, Calliax tooradin Sakai 1988, Paraglypturus tooradin Turkay and Sakai 1995,Eucalliax tooradin O’Hara and Barmby 2000 and now Pseudocalliax tooradin Sakai 2011)and is known only from a total of less than 10 individuals. Four were collected subtidally ingrab samples offshore from Crib Point in 1965 and since then have not been recorded inWestern Port (Figure 15). The habitat where it was found at Crib Point comprised shallow,subtidal fine sand. It was also found in Swan Bay, a primarily shallow seagrass ecosystem.Its potential dependence on seagrass is not known.


Figure 15. Distribution of Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin(From O’Hara and Barmby 2000)


The ghost shrimp Michelea microphylla is known from only one specimen collected in sandygravel in 19 m water depth offshore from Crib Point in 1965 (Figure 16). It is very rare as ithas not been found anywhere else since 1965, including the comprehensive samplingprogram for the Western Port study in the 1970s (Coleman et al, 1978).

Figure 16. Distribution of ghost shrimp Michelia microphylla(From O’Hara and Barmby 2000)


O’Hara and Barmby (2000) consider that the record of the brittle star Amphiura triscacanthafrom Western Port (Figure 17) is likely to be a mis-identification of another species, and thatthe species is likely to be confined to Posidonia seagrass beds in Corner Inlet and the SouthAustralian Gulfs.

Figure 17. Distribution of brittle star (Amphiura triscacantha)(From O’Hara and Barmby 2000)


The sea cucumber Apsolidium densum is known from only three individuals at Apollo Bayand one outside Western Port at Flinders (Figure 18). All four individuals collected were fromrocky, wave exposed, intertidal habitats.

Figure 18. Distribution of the sea cucumber (Apsolidium densum)(From O’Hara and Barmby 2000)


The sea cucumber Apsolidium handrecki is known from three separate locations in Victoria,South Australia and Western Australia. At all locations, the sea cucumber was found inrocky, intertidal habitats. The six specimens from Victoria were restricted to small rockplatforms at Merricks, in the western arm of Western Port (O’Hara and Barmby 2000).

Figure 19. Distribution of the sea cucumber Apsolidium handrecki in Victoria(From O’Hara and Barmby 2000)


The chiton Bassethullia glypta is restricted to the central Victorian coast at the entrance toPort Phillip and Flinders near the entrance to Western Port and possibly at Stanley on thenorthwest coast of Tasmania (O’Hara and Barmby, 2000) (Figure 20). It is found under rocksin clean sand associated with high currents or wave exposed environments from the intertidalzone to 10 m water depth.

Figure 20. Distribution of the chiton (Bassethullia glypta) in Victoria(From O’Hara and Barmby 2000)

Two nudibranchs (Platydoris galbanus and the genus Rhodope) from San Remo are listedunder the FFG Act, as well as the ‘San Remo Marine Community’ (see below).

The Hydroid species Ralpharia coccinea has only been found growing epizoically on the softcoral Parerythropodium membranaceum (Watson, 2015) at Crawfish Rock, at the top ofNorth Arm, Western Port. It is similar to the more common species Ralpharia magnifica thatalso commonly grows on Parerythropodium membranaceum. Observations over many yearson Western Port jetties have not revealed the presence of either hydroid species on jettypiles (CEE, 2016).


5.4.7 San Remo Marine CommunityThe ‘San Remo Marine Community’ listed in the FFG Act is located just north of the PhillipIsland Road bridge across the Narrows, near the eastern entrance to Western Port. It isaround 23 km from Crib Point. The San Remo Marine Community was listed under the FFGAct due to the particularly high abundance and diversity of opisthobranch taxa (Nudibranchmolluscs) in the 18 ha area that extends across an intertidal rock platform to the edge of thechannel. Two opisthobranch taxa are listed individually on the FFG (Platydoris galbanus,Rhodope sp.) and a number of species are expected to be listed once they are described.

The San Remo Marine Community was listed under the FFG Act to protect it from coastaland marine development inconsistent with its survival (such as a marina proposed for thesite). Identified threats include (FFG Action Statement No. 18): loss of all or part of thecommunity due to dredging, invasion of the site by other species after physical disturbance,sedimentation from nearby dredging, changes to currents due to construction of breakwaters,and changes to water quality. The community was listed primarily to protect it fromincompatible developments in the local area.

The effects of the Project are likely to be restricted within North Arm of Western Port. Hence,the San Remo Marine Community, located more than 16 km from North Arm is most unlikelyto be affected by the Project.

5.5 EPBC Act threatening processesTwo threatening processes affecting marine species are listed under the EPBC Act:· Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases; and,· Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in,

harmful marine debris.

Listed Threatening Processes listed under the EPBC Act are not matters of environmentalsignificance, they are intended to provide official recognition of threatening processes andraise awareness of the significance of these threats to national biodiversity.

The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Energy may decide that a threatabatement plan is appropriate. In the case of climate change, the Threatened SpeciesScientific Committee advised the Minister that given that the Commonwealth, State andTerritory governments have other greenhouse gas emission abatement plans in place, that athreat abatement plan under the EPBC Act was not appropriate (Threatened SpeciesScientific Committee, 2001). Nevertheless, the Project’s contribution to climate changeimpacts on marine environments was assessed – refer to the Greenhouse Gas EmissionsAssessment Report (Jacobs, 2018b).

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee advised the Minister on a threat abatementplan for marine debris, which is presently being revised. The Project does not entail thecreation of marine debris, assuming activities accord with State, Commonwealth andinternational regulations for waste management in marine environments.

Aspects of the Project, could potentially result in threatening processes listed under the FFGAct, such as:· Input of petroleum and related products into Victorian marine and estuarine environments· The discharge of human-generated marine debris into Victorian marine or estuarine

waters· The introduction of exotic organisms into Victorian marine waters


The FFG Act listed potentially threatening processes should be managed using anappropriately designed and implemented Environmental Management Plan and operationalcontrols which adhere to regulatory requirements regarding bilgewater, management of fuelsand waste. An action statement has been prepared for the threat of the introduction of exoticorganisms into Victorian Waters (FFG Action Statement No. 100). The threat of introductionof exotic marine species is discussed further below.

5.5.1 Introduced marine speciesThe anthropogenic translocation and establishment of non-indigenous marine species(NIMS) is considered to pose one of the greatest threats to marine biodiversity, as well asmore specific environmental, economic and human health impacts. The coasts of Australiahave proven to be particularly vulnerable to invasions of exotic marine species, and a recentassessment reports the number of introduced and cryptogenic marine species in Australia tobe 429 (Hewitt and Campbell, 2008). Temperate harbours and embayments on the southerncoasts are particularly vulnerable having been colonised by numerous species fromtemperate marine environments in the northern hemisphere, particularly the north-westPacific and the Mediterranean/north-east Atlantic regions. While many of the exotic speciesnow established in Australian waters are relatively benign in terms of impact, a number ofspecies are perceived to have caused significant impact and are considered to be invasivemarine pests. These include the Northern Pacific seastar (Asterias amurensis), the Japanesekelp (Undaria pinnatifida), the European shore crab (Carcinus maenas), and theMediterranean fan worm (Sabella spallanzanii).

Shipping and other maritime vessel traffic is one of the most significant vectors for both theprimary introduction and secondary dispersal of non-indigenous species. Ports, or the watersin the vicinity of ports, are therefore often “hot spots” for NIMS, and both ships’ ballast waterdischarge and hull biofouling (particularly sea-chests) are recognised as vectors for marinepest incursions. Once a pest becomes established in one port, this port can then become asource for secondary dispersal to nearby environments by natural means or to otherdomestic ports, marinas or harbours by maritime traffic. In Victoria this has occurred withboth Asterias amurensis and Undaria pinnatifida – which have since been detected atvarious locations outside Port Phillip Bay.

The risk posed by maritime traffic depends largely on the type of vessel or ship. Those thatspend large amounts of time in port, such as bulk carriers, barges and drilling rigs, meanNIMS have more opportunity to colonise the vessel or disperse from it. Those that spend littletime in port, such as container ships, pose a lower threat. Older vessels pose a greater threatas they are less likely to have good antifouling or effective ballast water managementsystems (to minimise the likelihood of translocating pests), while newer ships increasinglyhave effective ballast water management systems and good antifouling.

Going back a decade or so, a national port baseline survey program was undertaken todetermine the marine pest status of Australia’s waters, and 35 ports around Australia weresurveyed. As part of this program, the Port of Hastings (including Crib Point) was surveyed in1997 (Currie and Crookes, 1997), along with three other Victorian ports: Portland (Parry et al1997), Geelong (Curry et al, 1998) and Melbourne (Cohen et al, 2001).

In addition to determining the pest status in the surveyed ports, these surveys formed thebasis for assessment of ballast water uptake and discharge risk associated with domesticship voyages. A more general survey on marine pests in Western Port was undertaken in2000 (Cohen et al, 2000). This latter survey did not follow the structured sampling protocolsprescribed for the port surveys (Hewitt and Martin, 1996) but, instead, employed qualitativesurvey techniques to enable the survey of regions throughout Western Port, although there


was still an emphasis on areas considered susceptible to infestation, such as marinas andaquaculture sites.

5.5.1.1 The Marine Pest Status of Western PortDuring the 1997 baseline survey of the Port of Hastings, a total of 355 species werecollected. Only seven of these were confirmed as introduced species:· the European green crab Carcinus maenus;· the European clam Varicorbula gibba (as Corbula gibba);· the Asian bag mussel Musculista senhousia;· the Asian bivalve Theora lubrica; and· three cosmopolitan bryozoan species: Bugula dentata; Bugula neritina; and Watersipora

subtorquata.

For comparison, nine exotic species were detected in the baseline port survey of Portland,20 in Geelong, and 37 exotic or cryptogenic species in Melbourne. Bugula dentata was theonly species considered abundant enough within the Port of Hastings to cause significantecological impact, as its erect flexible growths were found on the surfaces of pier pylons of allcommercial wharves. However, this species has since been reconsidered to be native(Hewitt et al, 1999), with a widespread distribution in the Indo-Pacific.

The 2000 survey of marine pests in Western Port increased the number of recorded exoticspecies in the bay to 14 (Cohen et al, 2000). Species additional to those in the 1997 portsurvey were:· Four species of ascidians

o Ascidiella aspersa, Ciona intestinalis, Styela plicata and Styela clava,· the Mediterranean fanworm Sabella spallanzanii,· the bivalve Crassostrea gigas; and· two green algal species

o Codium fragile subsp. fragile and Ulva lactuca.

Only the crab Carcinus maenas appeared to be widely distributed in the bay in 2000, with theremainder apparently limited in their distribution. Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava werefound on mussel ropes transferred to Flinders from Port Phillip Bay, but were not found onthe nearby Flinders Pier or on the sea floor below the mussel farms.

A single occurrence of the Japanese kelp Undaria pinnatifida in Western Port is known fromnear Flinders Pier (G. Parry, pers comm.). These plants were removed and there were nofurther findings in subsequent monitoring of the site.

In late 2007 several juvenile New Zealand green-lipped mussels (Perna canaliculus) werefound in the sea chests of one of the vessels that voyages between Port Kembla andHastings when it was dry-docked for routine maintenance (Lewis pers. obs.). Although followup searches found no mussels near the relevant wharf at Hastings, the finding demonstratesa potential pathway for marine pest introduction to Western Port.

None of the large pests found in Port Phillip Bay (U. pinnatifida, A. amurensis, S.spallanzanii) have ever been observed during the BlueScope marine biological monitoringprogram (MSE, 2009) or biological monitoring of the Crib Point, Long Island Point orBlueScope jetties (Bok et al, 2017). However, since the last marine pest surveys in 2000, notargeted marine pest survey has been conducted in Western Port.


5.5.1.2 Marine Pest Management ArrangementsThe environmental and economic threat posed by marine pests to Western Port isrecognised by the Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) and Parks Victoria. ThePoHDA prohibits in-water cleaning of ship hulls and propellers. The discharge of ballastwaters is prohibited in port waters (PoHDA, 2017). Parks Victoria manages the three MarineNational Parks which protect representative areas of Victoria’s marine biodiversity, and hasidentified marine pests as one of the major threats to the biodiversity of the parks.

Responsibility for the regulation of ballast water in Australia now lies with theCommonwealth. In 2016 the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act 2015 came into force and thisenabled Australia to ratify the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Ballast WaterManagement Convention, which came into force on 8 September 2017. Ships in Australianwaters will now have to manage ballast water according to the Australian Ballast WaterManagement Requirements which align with the International Convention for the Control andManagement of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments 2004. The Biosecurity Act 2015 currentlycovers ballast water, but does not deal with the issue of biofouling, which is widelyrecognised as posing a similar or greater risk of introducing marine species to Australianwaters.

A major review of Australia’s marine pest management arrangements was undertaken in2014-15 (DAWR, 2015). The review made a number of recommendations for improving theway Australia prevents, eradicates and manages the introduction of marine species inAustralia. One of the key recommendations was that Australia introduce new biofoulingregulations consistent with International Maritime Organisation Biofouling Guidelines. Arevision of a 2011 biofouling regulation impact statement is currently in preparation, withconsultation expected to start in early 2018 (DAWR, 2018).

Currently, biofouling risks are managed through the National Biofouling ManagementGuidelines (Commercial Vessels, 2009) and Anti-Fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines(2015).

The contribution of the development to marine pest risks in Western Port will requiremanagement under present Port, State and Commonwealth regulations. Issues related tospecific aspects of the FSRU, such as development of hull fouling and cleaning, will beaddressed in subsequent stages of the project assessment.


6 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT EFFECTSThis section assesses the potential for project specific processes to affect MNES and FFGlisted species that may occur in the vicinity of the Crib Point Jetty and the operation of theFSRU.

6.1 Project processes and potential impact pathwaysThe potential impact pathways of the inclusion of the AGL Gas Import Jetty Project to thenormal operations of the Port of Hastings can be divided into three categories:

(1) Shipping berthing, departing, loading and unloading operations in the working Port ofHastings, maintenance and minor improvement works associated with the jetty, jettyaccess, navigation, security and administration,

(2) Upgrades to the existing Port infrastructure at Crib Point Jetty that will be required forthe mooring of the FSRU and LNG carriers and the unloading and transfer of LNGand high pressure natural gas (as part of the Jetty Upgrade project), and

(3) Operation of the heat exchange seawater intake and discharge associated with theregasification of LNG on-board the FSRU.

The category 1 impacts pathways are a consequence of the normal operation of the Port ofHastings. The Port of Hastings is operated by the PoHDA. PoHDA is responsible forenvironmental management of its own facilities and the general environmental managementof ship-based activities (including the FSRU) within the Port boundaries. The operation of theProject will be subject to these existing operational environmental requirements andtherefore has not been assessed further in this report.

The category 2 impact pathways are associated with the Jetty Upgrade, being undertaken bythe PoHDA. The proposed upgrades have been subject to an environmental risk assessment(Jacobs, 2018c) and subsequently a draft Environmental Management Plan has beenprepared for the construction activities. Category 2 impact pathways have not been assessedfurther in this report.

This assessment addresses the category 3 impact pathways − potential marineenvironmental impact pathways from the operation of the heat exchange system on-boardthe FSRU. The regulation of these impacts by EPA or DELWP will be determined inconsultation with those agencies.

The impact pathways associated with regasification process on board the FSRU are listedbelow.· Intake of up to 450,000 m3 of seawater per day (0.29% the volume of the MCG) for

heating of cold, liquid natural gas (LNG at -162oC) as part of the regasification processo A range of small marine and some large biota (including fish, diving seabirds such

as penguins, cormorants and gannets and mammals such as seals and native waterrats) may be drawn into the heat exchange system from the surrounding watercolumn (or seabed) in the intake current to the seawater pumps and heat exchangepipework of the regasification facility on the FSRU

o Large biota may be caught and damaged or drowned on screens at intakeo Small biota may pass through screens and suffer further damage in the pumps and

pipework of the heat exchangers.o In addition to the mechanical damage and injury to biota, smaller biota that survive

the passage through the pumps will be exposed to cold water (up to 7oC belowambient and chlorine derived biocide, which is intended prevent biological growth onthe internal walls of the heat exchange pipework.


· Discharge of up to 450,000m3 per day of cooled seawater at 7oC below ambient seawatero The discharge of cooled seawater could create a denser colder layer on the seabed

that may: affect physiological functions of temperature sensitive biota; affectreproductive responses of temperature sensitive species; affect migration or travelpaths of temperature sensitive species.

· Discharge of up to 450,000m3 per day of seawater containing residual chlorineo The discharge of seawater containing residual chlorine may: be toxic to chlorine

sensitive species; affect physiological functions of chlorine sensitive biota; and/oraffect reproductive responses of chlorine sensitive species.

The potential impact pathways from the operation of the FSRU on the marine environmentalecosystem have been described and modelled in separate reports, comprising:hydrodynamic and discharge mixing modelling (CEE, 2018a), heat exchange seawaterentrainment modelling (CEE, 2018b), the effects of cold-water discharge assessment on themarine ecosystem (CEE, 2018c) and chlorine behaviour investigation and toxicity modelling(CEE, 2018d). The key impact pathways are summarised below.

6.1.1 Entrainment effects and mitigationThe operation of the heat exchange system on the FSRU will require a daily volume of up to450,000 m3 (450 ML/day) of seawater from Western Port to be pumped at a rate of 5.2 m3/sthrough heat exchangers on-board the FSRU. This is a similar volume of seawater withdrawnby the Victorian Desalination Plant at Wonthaggi (currently at 11.6 m3/s), except that theFSRU will operate continuously for most of the year with downtime for maintenance andvariations in flow depending on LNG supply and gas demand.

The heat exchanger intake will be designed to minimise potential effects of seawaterentrainment on mobile animals in the water column as shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Seawater intake environmental parameters at Crib Point facility

As a result of the design features described above, large and small mobile animals can avoidbeing drawn into the intake by detecting the intake and swimming away from the screens.This mitigation process has been shown to be very effective in seawater cooling systems anddesalination plant systems throughout the world, including the Victorian Desalination Plant atWonthaggi.

0123456789

1011121314151617

Sea surface - low tide

Sea surface - high tide

Seabed - fine sand and silt

5 m

10 mSeawater Intake

Intake velocity at grille:Horizontal, 0.1 to 0.15 m/s,Perpendicular to ambient

14 m

4 m


The main unavoidable adverse effect of the heat exchanger system is the potential forentrainment of all the smaller marine organisms (zooplankton and phytoplankton), driftingeggs, larvae and larval fish) in the central part of the water column adjacent to the intake. It isassumed that all of these biota will not survive as a result of mechanical damage andexposure to chlorine biocide (CEE, 2018b).

Estimation of the proportion of planktonic populations that may be entrained are dependenton a range of factors including (1) the nature, distribution and annual variation of planktonicpopulations in North Arm of Western Port, which are currently undocumented and (2)hydrodynamic model configurations specific to entrainment. It has been recommended that:· Particle entrainment modelling for North Arm be developed to provide entrainment

proportion contours· A plankton and larval sampling program be designed and implemented to provide

information on spatial and temporal variations in plankton populations in North Armfocussing on the proposed location and position of the FSRU intake.

· Available information of literature on the effects of entrainment on semi-enclosed marineecosystems be reviewed to provide guidance on long-term ecosystem implications ofplankton entrainment.

6.1.2 Effects of cold seawater dischargeThe operation of the heat exchange system on the FSRU will result in the discharge of up to450,000 m3 per day (450 ML/day) of seawater that is initially 7oC cooler than the surroundingambient Western Port seawater. The modelling based on a conservative single-portdischarge showed that the cold, and therefore dense, seawater leave the single (or double)discharge port of the FSRU and descend towards the seabed where it would form a coollayer during periods of low currents during the turn of the tide (Figure 22). It will mix into thesurrounding water column during stronger mid-tidal currents.

Figure 22. Behaviour of cold-water discharge from FSRU at Crib Point

Under this scenario, the maximum temperature difference between ambient seawater andthe temperature in the plume after it has undergone the process of ‘initial dilution’ reachedthe seabed is predicted to be 0.8oC and 0.3oC below ambient for single port and six-portdischarges, respectively. The pool of cold-water may extend up to 600 m north during the


early stage of a rising tide or 600 m south during the early stage of a falling tide and may beup to 250 m wide at the FSRU. The cool pool may be up to 2.5 m thick above the seabed fora single-port discharge, but is less likely to form for a six-port discharge (Figure 23).

Figure 23. Maximum extent of cold water field cross-section (concept)

Seawater temperature above 2.5 m from the seabed will be unaffected by the dischargeexcept for the column of cold-water descending from the depth of the FSRU discharge.

The AGL preferred design for discharge of the cold seawater is through a six-port dischargearrangement, instead of the alternate single (or double) discharge port/s. This optimisesdilution of the discharge and results in a smaller temperature difference closer to thedischarge point being an area approximately 200 m north and south and 60 m east and westof the discharge point, representing a total seabed area of approximately 5 ha. No cold-waterpool forming on the seabed is likely at any stage of the tide with the six-port discharge.

6.1.3 Chlorine residual in seawater dischargeChlorine will be generated by electrolysis of seawater at the inlet to the seawater exchangesystem to prevent the settlement and growth of encrusting biota on the interior of the heatexchange pipework (CEE, 2018d). This is standard procedure for heat exchange systems inseawater applications and intakes to desalination plants. The initial concentration of chlorinewill be controlled so that the concentration of chlorine at the discharge will be 0.1 mg Cl2/L.The process of initial dilution from the single (or double) discharge port/s will reduce theconcentration of free chlorine residual from 0.1 mg Cl2/L at the outlet to 0.01 Cl2/L at theseabed. Reduction of chlorine residual concentration after initial dilution is mixing, time,organic content, salinity and water temperature dependent. After six hours mixing with tidalcurrents, the chlorine concentration in seawater at ambient temperature of 12oC is estimatedto reduce to 0.006 Cl2/L, while in warmer seawater (16oC to 18oC) the chlorine concentrationis estimated to reduce to 0.003 mg Cl2/L. A toxicity test at 16oC using Crib Point seawaterfound that the fertilisation of a local genus of sea urchin was affected after one hourexposure to 0.059 mg Cl2/L.

Agency ecosystem protection guidance values for free chlorine are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Chlorine ecosystem protection guidance valuesAgency Protection level Value, mg/LANZECC 2000 95 % species protection, freshwater and marine* 0.003USEPA 1985, 1991 Four day mean (chronic), marine 0.0075USEPA 1985, 1991 One hour mean (acute), marine 0.013


*Value for marine ecosystem “indicative interim working value”.


6.2 Endangered species – preliminary assessmentIn relation to endangered species (Blue Whales, Southern Right Whales, LeatherbackTurtles and Loggerhead Turtles in this case), the EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 - SignificantImpact Guidelines state that:

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is areal chance or possibility that it will:

· lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population;

· reduce the area of occupancy of the species;

· fragment an existing population into two or more populations;

· adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;

· disrupt the breeding cycle of a population;

· modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that

the species is likely to decline;

· result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species

becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat;

· introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or

· interfere with the recovery of the species.

There are no apparent direct or indirect pathways related to the Project that are likely toaffect Blue Whales, Southern Right Whales, Leatherback Turtles or Loggerhead Turtles:population size; area of occupancy; population continuity; critical habitat, breeding cycle; orspecies recovery.

6.3 Vulnerable species – preliminary assessmentIn relation to vulnerable species (Humpback Whales, White Shark, Australian Grayling andGreen Turtles), the EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1- Significant Impact Guidelines state that:

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibilitythat it will:· lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species;

· reduce the area of occupancy of an important population;

· fragment an existing important population into two or more populations;

· adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species;

· disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population;

· modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that thespecies is likely to decline;

· result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerablespecies’ habitat;

· introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or

· interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

There are no apparent direct or indirect pathways related of the Project that may affectHumpback Whales, White Sharks, or Green Turtles: population size; area of occupancy;population continuity; critical habitat, breeding cycle; or species recovery.


6.3.1 Australian GraylingThe potential for effect of the heat exchange system of the Project on Australian Graylinglarval dispersion and juvenile migration is assessed on the basis of available information(DELWP Action Statement No 257 DELWP 2015, National Recovery Plan for AustralianGrayling Prototroctes maraena, and Victorian Fisheries Authority fish species notes).

Grayling biologyThe Grayling, although rare, is found in most Victorian coastal rivers and streams from EastGippsland to the Hopkins River in Western Victoria. The National Recovery Plan listsWestern Port’s Lang Lang River, Cardinia Creek and Bunyip River among the 35 Victoria,three New South Wales and 30 Tasmanian streams that contain populations important forthe long-term survival and of the Grayling. The Victorian Fisheries Authority(vfa.vic.gov.au/education/fish-species/australian-grayling) notes that very large populationsof grayling occur in the Mitchell, Tambo and Barwon Rivers.

Adult Grayling live in freshwater rivers and streams and live for two to three years. Maturefemales produce large quantities of eggs, 25,000 to 68,000 eggs per female. During periodsof high flow in April and May, adult males and females migrate downstream to lower reacheswhere they form spawning aggregations. Eggs are laid in gravel streambeds. The slenderand buoyant larvae hatch from the gravel and are swept downstream into estuaries, baysand coastal seas. In the absence of high flows, adults do not migrate downstream, andfemales reabsorb the eggs they are carrying. Hence, adults may only spawn once in theirlives.

The coincidence of spawning and high river flows may assist in broader dispersion of larvaein the nearshore marine environment, where the larvae develop into juveniles and live for sixto ten months. The young ‘whitebait’ juvenile grayling migrate back to coastal streams tospend the remainder of their lives in fresh water reaches up to 100 km inland.

Adults appear to remain in the same stream their entire, short lives. Genetic studies ofGrayling concluded that there is a single genetic stock along the Victorian coastaldistribution. This indicates a high degree of dispersion and mixing during marine stage of thelarvae and juveniles along the entire coast. This is further indicated in the National RecoveryPlan conclusion that the species appears to be “able to recolonise rivers from which it hasbeen excluded…for decades.”

Assessment of effectThe Project processes that may affect Grayling are related to1. Potential entrainment of:

a. larvae during dispersion from freshwater streams into the marine environment, andb. juveniles that may live in or migrate through Western Port during their six to ten

month marine phase.2. Potential effects of the cold-water discharge on dispersing larvae and migrating juveniles.3. Potential toxic effects of free chlorine in the cold-water discharge on dispersing larvae

and migrating juveniles.

LarvaeLarvae may disperse into the marine environment during high freshwater flows from theCardinia Creek, Bunyip River and Lang Lang River in the Embayment Head of Upper NorthArm. The larvae are buoyant and will be located in the surface freshwater layer of thenorthern part of the Bay during wet weather events.


Figure 24. Location of grayling waterways in Upper North Arm


Figure 25. General water movement in Western Port

General water movement in Western Port (Figure 25) shows a clockwise pattern ofmovement, with net current in the embayment head in the region of the rivers containingGrayling populations towards the east and then down the Corinella Segment. Hence a highproportion of larvae are likely to follow the currents down the eastern side of French Island,not past Crib Point.

Any proportion of larvae that may drift past Crib Point are likely to be in the surface layer asthey are buoyant and are therefore unlikely to be entrained by the intake (which would belocated at least 4 m below the surface) or be exposed to cold water or chlorine (locatedwithin 2.5 m of the seabed).

JuvenilesJuvenile Grayling that live in the marine environment and migrate to suitable river systemsare independent swimmers and are likely to avoid the intake current.

AdultsBased on the extent of potential impact pathways and the distribution of adult Grayling, theProject will have negligible effect on adult Grayling populations in freshwater reaches ofVictorian streams.

6.4 Migratory species – preliminary assessmentIn relation to migratory species that are not listed as threatened species (Bryde’s Whale,Pygmy Right whale, Dusky Dolphin, Killer Whale and Mackerel Shark), the EPBC Act PolicyStatement 1.1- Significant Impact Guidelines state that:

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or possibilitythat it will:· substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering

hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species;


· result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area ofimportant habitat for the migratory species; or

· seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologicallysignificant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

Based on the EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1- Significant Impact Guidelines and thepotential impact pathways described for the AGL Gas Import Jetty Project, there are noapparent direct or indirect pathways related of the Project that may affect Bryde’s Whale,Pygmy Right whale, Dusky Dolphin, Killer Whale and Mackerel Shark: population size; areaof occupancy; population continuity; critical habitat, breeding cycle; or species recovery.

6.5 Preliminary assessment of FFG marine listed species andcommunities

Most of the marine species and communities listed under the FFG Act are relatively remotefrom Crib Point and the possible risk to those species and communities from developmentand operation of the natural gas facility at Crib Point is negligible. Project risk screening willfinalise the risk level for these species based on the above review information and projectspecific potential impact pathways.

6.5.1 Pale mangrove goby or flatback mangrove gobyThe pale mangrove goby Mugilogobius paludis is listed as under the FFG Act as threatenedand was recorded near Crib Point. However, as discussed in Section 5.4.5, this species isactually the flatback mangrove goby M platynotus, which is not listed as threatened under theFFG Act. The flatback mangrove goby is found only along the coast of eastern Australia andWestern Port is the southeastern limit of its distribution.

The pale mangrove goby lives mostly in burrows among mangrove roots in the upperintertidal zone. Goby species vary considerably in their reproductive characteristics. Eggsmay remain close to the position they are laid and fertilized, where they may be protected bythe male. Hatched larvae, however, disperse from the mangrove habitats and have multiplestages that drift with ambient currents for weeks or months before they return to occupysuitable habitat as adults.

The location and positioning of the intake in the mid-water column will minimize entrainmentof larvae if they have a preference for dispersal along natural boundaries. Further clarificationof the status of this species on the FFG threatened species list is required.

6.5.2 Ghost shrimpsTwo species of ghost shrimp are known from collections near Crib Point more than 50 yearsago: the Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin and the small-gilled ghost shrimpMichelea microphylla. The location of the collections in Western Port are shown in Figure 26.


Figure 26. Locations of collection of FFG listed ghost shrimps near Crib Point

The local significance of both species is noted in the Western Port Ramsar Site ManagementPlan 2017.

Four individuals of Pseudocalliax tooradin were collected in grab sampling at 5 m depth (withone specimen collected from an unknown depth) during a survey in 1965. One otherspecimen of this species was collected at 2 m depth in Swan Bay in Port Phillip in 1982.Hence, this species is reasonably documented as a rare species.

One individual of Michelea microphylla, the only individual of this species known to exist, wasfound at 19 m depth. Dr Gary Poore, Emeritus Curator at the Museum of Victoria and thetaxonomist who scientifically described this crustacean as a species, advised that thespecimen he examined was complete, had features that were notably distinct from otherghost shrimp species and was definitely a separate and rare species. Dr Poore explainedthat, like Pseudocalliax and other ghost shrimps, this shrimp is a burrowing species and mayoccupy a deep burrow. This specimen was found in relatively deep water in sediments that isnot often sampled to the depth of sediment occupied by the animal and its general location inWestern Port. In conclusion, even though no specimens have been identified in more than 50years, Dr Poore considered that it is still likely to be present in low numbers in suitablehabitat.

Victorian Regional Channels Authority (VRCA) is responsible for maintaining navigationalwater depths into Geelong, Western Port and Portland. VRCA intend to level 95 m2 ofisolated high points at Berth 2 of Crib Point Jetty and engaged CEE to investigate thepresence of threatened ghost shrimps in the vicinity of the high points (CEE 2018e). Theinvestigation was designed by experienced marine biologists from CEE in consultation withDr J Watson (Marine Science and Ecology) and Dr G Poore from the Museums of Victoria.The area was surveyed on 13 July 2018. No threatened species of ghost shrimp were foundduring the survey.


6.5.2.1 Assessment of entrainment effectBoth of these shrimps may have planktonic larvae with planktonic durations that could resultin their susceptibility to entrainment. For example, some species of ghost shrimps in WesternPort to related to Pseudocalliax tooradin and Michelea microphylla have larval periods (withfour or five stages) totalling more than 15 days, while others have larval periods (with onlytwo or three planktonic stages) totalling less than 14 days, while other have been estimatedat six weeks (Butler, Reid and Bird, 2009). The behaviour of larvae in the water column is notknown.

The adults of Pseudocalliax tooradin and Michelea microphylla have distributions that arerestricted to the proximity of Crib Point. Preliminary modelling of biological entrainment by CEEfor this Project (CEE, 2018b) shows that up to 10 per cent of larvae released on the westernedge of the channel (including the adjacent mudflats) within about 750 m of Crib Point may beentrained into the heat exchange system of the FSRU. These levels may represent a significantproportion for these rare species if they are present within the Crib Point region.

6.5.2.2 Assessment of cold water and chlorine toxicity effectPseudocalliax tooradin was found at 5 m depth in Western Port and 2 m depth in Swan Bay.This would indicate that the species may be restricted to depths shallower than the cold-water plume. Hence it may not be affected by temperature or chlorine toxicity effects.However, its distribution is only known from two samples. Hence, it may occur sparsely overa greater depth range.

Michelea microphylla was found approximately 2.4 km north of Crib Point Jetty, in gravellyseabed, at 19 m depth in the main North Arm channel. Its proximity to the FSRU, itspresence close to the footprint of the cold-water pool and its occupancy of burrows indicatesthat it is susceptible to the cold-water discharge and residual chlorine toxicity exposure.

The impact of the discharge in seabed biota may be mitigated by discharge through a multi-port discharge that would increase dilution of the discharge and reduce the extent of possibletoxicity effects.

6.5.2.3 Combined effect and recommendationThe combined effect of the cold-water discharge (including residual chlorine) andentrainment may be sufficient to affect populations of benthic species in the near proximity ofthe discharge. However, the distribution of benthic invertebrates including ghost shrimps inthe channels of Western Port, including North Arm, has not been documented for more than50 years. Hence, it is recommended that targeted sampling for these particular threatenedghost shrimps (as well as infauna and epifauna in general) be designed and implemented todocument the present status of threatened species and character of the benthic invertebratecommunity. The study would also guide further assessment of the effects of the proposal onthe marine ecosystem habitat of the channel soft sediment seabed.

6.6 Ramsar areaThe designation of a Ramsar area is primarily based on its international importance towaterbirds. The marine environmental impact pathways described in Section 6.1 are highlyunlikely to directly affect the activities of waterbirds in the intertidal areas and roosting areasof the Western Port Ramsar area.

As discussed in Section 4, Western Port meets seven of the nine criteria, but may meet eightof the criteria if Criterion 9 (below) includes FFG threatened species discussed in Section 5.The potential effects of impact pathways described in Section 6.1 on the Ramsar selectionCriteria relevant to Western Port are summarised in Table 6.


Table 6. Assessment of Ramsar Selection Criteria

Ramsar criteria (based on DEE Criteria) Potential effect

Criterion 1: Representative, rare, orunique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type.

Project does not involve physical changesto Western Port beyond jetty berths

Criterion 2: Supports vulnerable,endangered, or critically endangeredspecies or threatened ecologicalcommunities.

Possible localised effects on some statelisted threatened marine invertebratespecies in North Arm

Criterion 3: Supports populations of plantand/or animal species important formaintaining the biological diversity.

Negligible effect on seagrasses andmangroves. Potential localised effects onchannel soft seabed communities

Criterion 4: Supports plant and/or animalspecies at a critical stage in their lifecycles, or provides refuge during adverseconditions.

Possible effects on plankton andplanktonic life stages of some marineinvertebrate species

Criterion 5: Regularly supports 20,000 ormore waterbirds.

Marine pathways are unlikely to directlyaffect waterbirds in North Arm and mostunlikely to affect waterbirds elsewhere inWestern Port

Criterion 6: Regularly supports 1% of theindividuals in a population of one speciesor subspecies of waterbird.

Marine pathways are most unlikely todirectly affect waterbirds

Criterion 7: Supports a significantproportion of indigenous fish subspecies,species or families, life-history stages,species interactions and/or populationsthat are representative of wetland benefitsand/or values and contributes to globalbiological diversity.

N/A

Criterion 8: Important source of food forfishes, spawning ground, nursery and/ormigration path on which fish stocks, eitherwithin the wetland or elsewhere, depend.

Possible effects on plankton andplanktonic life stages of some marineinvertebrate species

Criterion 9. Regularly supports 1% of theindividuals in a population of one speciesor subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species.

Possible effect on small-gilled ghostshrimp population

The table indicates that there is negligible to low risk to five of the Ramsar criteria. There isnegligible risk to those criteria directly involving waterbird populations. There is possibleinteraction of the Project (cold-water discharge and entrainment pathways) with aspects offour Ramsar Criteria. This interaction is expected to occur within a confined part of North Armwithin the larger Western Port Ramsar area and is unlikely to affect waterbird populations.

The level of potential effect on marine ecosystem values in the vicinity of the proposal withinNorth Arm has been discussed in more detail in the plume dispersion report and modellingand assessment of biological entrainment reports. Benthic habitats in water depths less thanless than 12.5 m will be unaffected by the direct effects of FSRU operation. These unaffected


habitats include intertidal saltmarsh, mangroves, seagrass and mudflat habitats, which arevaluable foraging and roosting habitats for waterbirds. Subtidal seagrass and shallow, bareseabed habitats will also be unaffected by direct effects.

CEE marine ecosystem assessment reports (including this one) have recommendedmitigation measures to minimise potential effects on the marine ecosystem including intakedesign for heat exchange system and multi-port discharge arrangement.

The general outcome of the reports indicates that the direct effects of the full-scale operationof the FSRU on the marine ecosystem in the Ramsar area will relate to discharge of cold-water, discharge of residual chlorine and entrainment of larvae and plankton. As statedabove, the extent of cold-water and chlorine toxicity effects are likely to be restricted to anarea approximately 200 m north and south and 60 m east and west of the discharge point inwater depth from approximately 12.5 m to 17 m. This represents an area of approximately5 ha, which is less than 0.5 % of the seabed depth in North Arm. Entrainment of up to 10percent may extend to 750 m north and south from the FSRU, but overall entrainment inNorth Arm is expected to be less than 1 % of the whole of the North Arm.

The predominant habitats in the area are: bare soft seabed habitats occupied by invertebratecommunities (infauna and epibiota) and some mobile fish, and; planktonic communities in theconstantly moving water column of the main North Arm channel.

The longer term effects of entrainment on planktonic populations (including some planktoniclarvae and eggs) are uncertain due to the possible intermittent and variable operation of theFSRU which depends on uncertain national and state energy supply options and stateenergy demands in the near future and over the next decades.

The modelling completed for this report and other supporting studies was based on theoriginal FSRU seawater flow-through rate of 450,000 m3/day (450 ML/day). AGL has advisedthat a seawater flow-through rate of 300,000 m3/day (300 ML/day), corresponding to a lowerregasification rate is more likely. In this case, the proportion of plankton entrained may bereduced by approximately one third.

CEE marine ecosystem assessment reports (including this one) have recommended furtherstudies to inform assessment of the nature and extent of potential effects on the North ArmRamsar marine ecosystem. The recommended studies from the marine ecosystem reportsare:· Benthic invertebrate sampling to document the present characteristics and distribution of








7 CONCLUSIONThe review of marine Commonwealth EPBC Act matters of national environmentalsignificance and the State FFG Act listed species has been completed for the AGL GasImport Jetty Project. The assessment identified 33 threatened marine species (excludingbirds) and one marine community that the Acts list may occur in Western Port.

CEE’s review found that many of the species in the State and Commonwealth Acts wererelatively widely distributed, that Western Port represented a small component of their rangeand that Western Port was not recognised as a significant aggregation, breeding or feedinglocation or migratory path for most EPBC identified species and many FFG listed species(excluding water birds).

The initial review identified four species where further investigations have been undertakento inform this assessment:· Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena: EPBC Act ‘Vulnerable’; FFG listed· Pale Mangrove Goby Mugilogobius paludis: FFG listed· Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin: FFG listed· Ghost shrimp Michelea microphylla: FFG listed

Further examination of information about the Australian Grayling indicated that adultpopulations in the rivers and streams would not be exposed to impact pathways and that theproportion of larvae of these species that might disperse via North Arm and be affected byProject processes was low.

Museums of Victoria personnel advised that the Pale Mangrove goby Mugilogobius paludiswas synonymous with the more common flatback goby Mugilogobius platynotus, which is notlisted on the FFFG threatened species list.

The Western Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin and the ghost shrimp Micheleamicrophylla are known from collections near Crib Point more than 50 years ago. TheWestern Port ghost shrimp Pseudocalliax tooradin is known from a total of five records, andthe ghost shrimp Michelea microphylla is known from only one specimen. No further recordsof the ghost shrimp species have been recorded since 1965 in Western Port or elsewhere(with the exception of Western Port ghost shrimp with one additional record outside ofWestern Port in 1982). This is despite a comprehensive sampling program for the WesternPort study in the 1970s (Coleman et al, 1978).

Benthic habitats in water depths less than less than 12.5 m of the Ramsar area will beunaffected by the direct effects of the seawater heat exchange discharge from the FSRUoperation. These unaffected habitats include intertidal saltmarsh, mangroves, seagrass andmudflat habitats, which are valuable foraging and roosting habitats for waterbirds. Subtidalseagrass and shallow, bare seabed habitats in the Ramsar area will also be unaffected bydirect effects.

CEE marine ecosystem assessment reports (including this one) have recommendedmitigation measures to minimise potential effects on the marine ecosystem including intakedesign for heat exchange system to minimise entrainment of biota from the water columnand multi-port discharge arrangement to minimise effects of cold-water discharge on marinebiota.

The general outcome of the reports indicates that the direct effects of the full-scale operationof the FSRU on the marine ecosystem in the Ramsar area relate to discharge of cold-water,discharge of residual chlorine and entrainment of larvae and plankton. As stated above, the


extent of cold-water and chlorine toxicity effects are likely to be restricted to an areaapproximately 200 m north and south and 60 m east and west of the discharge point in waterdepth from approximately 12.5 m to 17 m. This represents an area of approximately 5 ha,which is less than 0.5 % of the seabed in North Arm2. Entrainment of up to 10 percent ofsome plankton and larvae may extend to 750 m north and south from the FSRU, but overallentrainment in North Arm is expected to be less than 1% of the whole of the North Arm.The predominant habitats in the area that may be affected are: bare soft seabed habitatsoccupied by invertebrate communities (infauna and epibiota) and some mobile fish, and;planktonic communities in the constantly moving water column of the main North Armchannel.

The longer term effects of entrainment on planktonic populations (including some planktoniclarvae and eggs) are uncertain due to the possible intermittent and variable operation of theFSRU which depends on uncertain national and state energy supply options and stateenergy demands in the near future and over the next decades. The duration of operation willdepend in multiple factors including security of energy supply and raw energy supplymarkets.

AGL is committed to further marine environmental studies prior to operation and is presentlyconsidering:· Benthic invertebrate sampling to document the present characteristics and distribution of







These studies will inform a works approval application under the Environment Protection Act1970 and in accordance with the relevant associated regulations, including the StateEnvironment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria).

2 Percentage based on the area of North Arm which is greater than 10 m depth.


8 REFERENCESAtlas of Living Australia (2017), CSIRO and NCRIS. https://www.ala.org.au/ accessed

September 2017.

Australian Wetlands Database (2017) Ramsar Wetlands: Western Port.http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/ramsardetails.pl?refcode=19accessed September 2017

Bok, M, Chidgey, S., Crockett, P. (2017) Five years on: monitoring of Long Island Point’sWestern Port wastewater discharge. The APPEA Journal 57:10-25.

CEE 2009. Port of Hastings Stage 1 Development. Marine Ecosystem PreliminaryConsiderations. Report to AECOM and Port of Hastings Corporation. CEE,Melbourne, August 2009.

CEE 2014. Port of Hastings Seagrass Monitoring Pilot Study. Report to Port of HastingsDevelopment Authority. CEE Melbourne June 2014.

CEE (2016). Long Island Point Wastewater discharge. Marine Ecological and water qualitymonitoring 2010 – 2016. CEE report to Esso Australia

CEE (2018a) Plume Modelling of Discharge from LNG Facility at Crib Point, Western Port –AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. Report for AGL. Report for AGL.

CEE (2018b) Modelling and Assessment of Biological Entrainment – AGL Gas Import JettyProject. Report for AGL.

CEE (2018c) Assessment of effects of cold-water discharge on marine ecosystem at CribPoint – AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. Report for AGL.

CEE (2018d) Chlorine in FSRU Seawater Processes – AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. Reportfor AGL.

CEE (2018e) Threatened ghost shrimp survey Berth 2 Crib Point Jetty Risk from bedlevelling of isolated high points. Report to VRCA, August 2018.

Cohen, B.F., McArthur, M.A. & Parry, G.D. (2000) Exotic marine pests in Westernport.Report No. 22. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, Queenscliff, Vic.

Cohen, B.F., McArthur, M.A. & Parry, G.D. (2001) Exotic marine pests in the Port ofMelbourne, Victoria. Report No. 25. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute,Queenscliff, Vic.

Coleman N, W Cuff, M Drummond and JD Kudenov (1978). A quantitative survey of themacrobenthos of Western Port, Victoria. Australian Journal of Marine and FreshwaterResearch 29(4):445 - 466

Crook, D.A., J. I. Macdonald, J.P. O’Connor, B. Barry (2006) Use of otolith chemistry toexamine patterns of diadromy in the threatened Australian grayling Prototroctesmaraena. Journal of Fish Biology.

Currie, D.R. & Crookes, D.P. (1997) Exotic marine pests in the Port of Hastings, Victoria.Report No. 4. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, Queenscliff, Vic.

Currie, D.R., McArthur, M.A. & Cohen, B.F. (1998) Exotic marine pests in the Port ofGeelong, Victoria. Report No. 8. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute,Queenscliff, Vic.

DA/DE (2015) Antifouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines, April 2015. AustralianGovernment Department of Agriculture | Department of the Environment.

https://www.ala.org.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/ramsardetails.pl?refcode=19


DAWR (2015) Review of national marine pest biosecurity. Australian GovernmentDepartment of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra.

DAWR (2018) Managing biofouling in Australia. Australian Government Department ofAgriculture and Water Resources, Canberra.http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/biofouling. Viewed: 22February 2018.

DoEE (2014) Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus), Department ofEnvironment and Energy, Canberra.

DELWP (2016) Benefits of environmental water – Spawning of Australian Grayling in fourcoastal rivers. Fact Sheet 3 – Spawning success of Australian Grayling.

DELWP (2017). Western Port Ramsar Site Management Plan Summary. Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne.

DEPI (2013) Action Statement Three Year Plan: A three year implementation plan for ActionStatements. Victorian Government Department of Environment and PrimaryIndustries, East Melbourne.

DSE (2003) Action Statement No. 115: Australian Mudfish Neochanna cleaveri. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DELWP (2015) Action Statement No. 257: Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena.Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning, EastMelbourne.

DELWP (2015) Action Statement No. 259: Australian Whitebait Lovettia sealii. VictorianGovernment Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning, East Melbourne.

DELWP (2017). Western Port Ramsar Site Management Plan Summary. Department ofEnvironment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne.

DEWHA (2009) Threat abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marinelife. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and theArts, Canberra.

DSE (2003) Action Statement No. 18: San Remo Marine Community. Victorian GovernmentDepartment of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE (2004) Action Statement No. 94: Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE (2004) Action Statement No. 100: Introduction of exotic organisms into Victorian marinewaters. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, EastMelbourne.

DSE (2003) Action Statement No. 185: Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE (2003) Action Statement No. 186: Grey Nurse Shark Carcharias taurus. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE (2003) Action Statement No. 197: Southern Bluefin Tuna Thunnus maccoyii. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE (2009) Action Statement No. 242: Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE (2009) Action Statement No. 247: Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/biofouling


DSE (2009) Action Statement No. 250: Leathery Turtle Dermochelys coriacea. VictorianGovernment Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.

EPA (1996) The Western Port Marine Environment. EPA Publication no 493. EnvironmentProtection Authority

EPA (2001) Protecting the Waters of Western Port and Catchment. EPA Publication no 797.Environment Protection Authority

Hewitt, C. & Martin, R. (1996) Port surveys for introduced marine species – backgroundconsiderations and sampling protocols. Technical Report No. 4. Centre for Researchon Introduced Marine Pests, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Tas.

Hewitt, C.L., Campbell, M.L., Thresher, R.E. & Martin, R.B. (eds) (1999). Marine biologicalinvasions of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Technical Report No. 20. Centre for Researchon Introduced Marine Pests, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Tas.

Hewitt, C.L., Campbell, M.L., Thresher, R.E. & Martin, R.B. (eds) (1999). Marine biologicalinvasions of Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Technical Report No. 20. Centre for Researchon Introduced Marine Pests, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart, Tas.

Hewitt, C. & Campbell, M. (2008) Assessment of relative contributions of vectors to theintroduction and translocation of marine invasive species. Final Report for Project9/2007. An independent report undertaken for the National System for the Preventionand Management of Marine Pest Incursions, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry, Canberra

Hindell and Jenkins (2003). Spatial and temporal variability in the assemblage structure offishes associated with mangroves (Avicennia marina) and intertidal mudflats intemperate Australian embayments. Marine Biology 144:385-395.

Hirst, A., Bott, N., Lee, R. (2013). Plankton survey of Asterias amurensis larvae in coastalwaters of Victoria (August-September 2012) – Final Report. Fisheries TechnicalReport 178, Department of Primary Industries, Queenscliff, Victoria, Australia.

Jacobs (2018a). Flora and Fauna Assessment – AGL Gas Import Jetty Project. Report forAGL.

Jacobs (2018b). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment – AGL Gas Import Jetty Project.Report for AGL.

Jacobs (2018c). Crib Point Jetty Upgrade Environmental Risk Assessment. Report for Port ofHastings Development Authority.

Jenkins (2015). Spatial and temporal variability in the assemblage structure of fishesassociated with mangroves (Avicennia marina) and intertidal mudflats in temperateAustralian embayments. Marine Biology 144:385-395.

KBR (2010) (Kellogg Brown & Root), Western Port Ramsar Wetland Ecological CharacterDescription. Report for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populationand Communities, Canberra.

Kimmerer W and A D McKinnon (1987a) Zooplankton in a marine bay.I. Horizontaldistributions to estimate net population growth rates. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 41: 43- 52.

Kimmerer W and A D McKinnon (1987b) Zooplankton in a marine bay.II. Vertical migration tomaintain horizontal distributions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 41: 53-60.

Last and Stevens (2005). Sharks and Rays of Australia. Publisher CSIRO Collingwood, VIC.


O’Hara, T. and Barmby, V. (2000). Victorian Marine Species of Conservation Concern:Molluscs, Echinoderms and Decapod Crustaceans. Parks, Flora and Fauna Division,Department of Natural Resources and Environment, East Melbourne, Australia.

Marine Science and Ecology (1990) History and Review of Marine Environmental Monitoringin Western Port, 1972-1989. Prepared for BHP International Steel Coated Productsby Marine Science and Ecology, Environmental Consultants.

Marine Science and Ecology (2009) History of Marine Ecological Monitoring for Cold StripMill, 1973-2009, North Arm Channel, Western Port, Victoria, Report to CEE, June2009.

Melbourne Water (2011) Understanding the Western Port Environment, A summary ofcurrent knowledge and priorities for future research. Editors M J Keough and RBathgate for Melbourne Water, Port Phillip and Westernport CMA, Victoria.November 2011.

Ministry for Conservation (1975) Westernport Bay Environmental Study 1973-1974. Ministryfor Conservation, Victoria.NIMPIS (2009) National Biofouling Management Guidelinesfor Commercial Vessels. The National System for the Prevention and Management ofMarine Pest Incursions, Australian Government, Canberra.

PoHDA (2017) Port Operating Handbook. Port of Hastings Development Authority, Hastings,Victoria

Poore G C B (2004) Marine decapod crustacea of Southern Australia: A guide toidentification. Museum of Victoria. CSIRO Publishing.

Ross, G.J. (2006) Review of the Conservation Status of Australia’s Smaller Whales andDolphins, report to the Australian Government Department of Environment.http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/e94eb941-2ff5-4a29-89a3-891059be4e47/files/co02conservation-smaller-whales-dolphins.pdf

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2001) Commonwealth Listing Advice on Loss ofterrestrial climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowkeythreat.pl?id=7

Watson, J. (2015) Ralpharia coccinea Hydroid in Museums Victoria Collectionshttps://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/species/14033 Accessed September 2017

Warneke (1995) Australian fur seal Arctocephalus pusillus (Schreber, 1775). Pp. 680-682 inThe mammals of Australia ed by R. Strahan. Reed Books: Chatswood.

Whitley (1930) Ichthyological miscellanea. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 10:9-31

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/e94eb941-2ff5-4a29-89a3-891059be4e47/files/co02conservation-smaller-whales-dolphins.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/e94eb941-2ff5-4a29-89a3-891059be4e47/files/co02conservation-smaller-whales-dolphins.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowkeythreat.pl?id=7

https://collections.museumvictoria.com.au/species/14033%20Accessed%20September%202017

Documents

AGL Gas Import Jetty Project Crib Point, Western Port